Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:36, 14 March 2008

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template:Cfdu-header

Speedy nominations

Place legitimate candidates for speedy deletion, merging, or renaming (see Wikipedia:Category deletion policy/Speedy criteria) here instead of under a date heading.
If a nomination listed here is not a clear case for speedy, re-list it under the current date.

New nominations by date

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

March 14

Category:User tsolyáni

No users in the first categoy, 1 user in the second category. "Tsolyáni is one of several languages invented by M. A. R. Barker for the Tékumel Empire of the Petal Throne gaming series". Zero chance of a Wikipedia every being developed in this language. Totally useless. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User wenedyk

According to the article, this is a made up language inventend for a story about an alternate history timeline. The article on the story that invented the language has been AfD'd (Ill Bethisad). We definitely don't need a language category for this. Zero chance a Wikipedia will ever be developed in this "language". VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User tokipona

Constructed language created a mere 7 years ago. No ISO code. Three fluent speakers, according to the article. There will never be a Wikipedia in this language, and if by some miracle there is one day, the categories can be re-created at that time. Until then, we don't need categories for this. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phantastic Wikipedians

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Phantom of the Opera for clarification & per standard naming conventions. Alternatively, based on the category description, it could be argued the category members are only interested in Erik (The Phantom of the Opera), in which case I could support deletion as a single-article category. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans

Rename to Wikipedians interested in Ghostbusters per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans

Rename to Wikipedians interested in the Three Stooges per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series

Rename to Wikipedians interested in The Matrix (franchise) per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film and to match the article name at The Matrix (franchise). VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang

Cockney rhyming slang is now a redirect to Rhyming slang, so this at minimum needs to be renamed to match that. However, this looks like a single-article category, and hence could not foster collaboration, so my first choice is deletion. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Category:Users that are weird

Improperly named, and does not help encyclopedia in the least. VegaDark (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User enc and all subcategories

This language is not helpful to have categories for. There will never be a Cajun English Wikipedia, so there will never be a purpose to seek out users in such categories. The userbox notice should be more than sufficient. Additionally, all the subcategories are already unpopulated except for a template page. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or merge all to Category:User en as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. More babelcruft. There is a Cajun French language that is recognized (ISO 639-3 code frc), but not "Cajun English". Additionally, enc is the ISO 639-3 code for En, an obscure Vietnamese language. Horologium (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users that also have a WikiAlmanac account

WikiAlmanac is a non-notable Wiki created a mere 7 days ago. In fact, that article probably meets the A7 speedy deletion requirement. At minimum needs a rename to conform to the naming convention in Category:Wikipedians by website. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - since the website is still undeveloped and essentially maintained by a single user, it's hard to tell whether this could eventually become a useful "by website" category. However, presently and for the foreseeable future, it is not and the category should be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - It is a website, it is notable, and if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a nice growing infomative encyclopedia, I suggest you keep it. Nothing 444 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. While this does not exactly meet any one of the specific speedy criteria, the "snowball clause" applies. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists to Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians

Categories are redundant. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 10

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

Delete Category:Wikipedians interested in books. What to do with "books as objects" may be determined by this discussion. (Possibly upmerge to "by interest".) Once that cat is moved, this could be speedied as "empty". - jc37 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, ~~didn't we just do this two weeks ago?~~ -- Ned Scott 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did just do this. [1], [2],[3]. Was this a mistake? o.O -- Ned Scott 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we are, the other CfD. I guess that means this is a more focused relisting? In any case, keep per my comments there. Also, did someone depopulate this category already? I was pretty sure we weren't discussing an empty one the last time. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it was empty of users and contained just two other categories, both of which have been moved to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The "literature" naming is obviously clearer, especially for authors. (Noting that someone else created the cat.) This left a cat that would be empty save for a subcat of a single Wikipedian.

It's been pretty well established that "Wikipedians interested in books", as a category name, is simply too vague. So this is a question of whether it should exist as a parent category. (To be honest, I nearly just moved the subcat to Category:Wikipedians by interest, but even after the several discussions, it's still only a single member category.) - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, since no one was really interested in being categorized like this, and it would require a rename (and possibly a change in it's inclusion criteria) to be more practical, I'll retract my keep. -- Ned Scott 09:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the subcat to Category:Wikipedians by interest. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who read Tolkien

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who read Tolkien to Category:Wikipedians who read J. R. R. Tolkien adding J. R. R. per J. R. R. Tolkien. Probably qualifies for speedy renaming. - jc37 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia

"Rename' Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia to Category:Wikipedians who read Narnia interested in > who read, per convention of the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. Probably qualifies for speedy renaming. - jc37 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as named, Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Chronicles of Narnia, there is a movie in this series as well so it is not just a series of books, hence "who read" would be inaccurate. Similar to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually the series name is The Chronicles of Narnia. So we need a rename to at least that. - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Harry Potter

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Harry Potter to Category:Wikipedians who read Harry Potter like > read, per convention of the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. Probably qualifies for speedy renaming. - jc37 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Harry Potter. This category is for those who not just read the books, but also for those who watch the movies (and perhaps could be used to support collaboration on HP related video games, etc.). Similar to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I currently don't oppose that. - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble

Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble - single article cat. Should be deleted for the same reasons that the individual video game cats were deleted. - jc37 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm not sure if there are enough articles on this subject to support collaboration or not, knowing "who plays" scrabble is not helpful. Neutral on an "interested in" version though. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Diplomacy

Category:Wikipedians who play Diplomacy - single article cat. Should be deleted for the same reasons that the individual video game cats were deleted. - jc37 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games

Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games - "For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek." - Populated by User:Aldaron/BGG.

Essentially a "Wikipedians by gaming website" masquerading as a "by interest" category. - jc37 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 9

Category:Wikipedians who play tennis

Category:Wikipedians who play tennis - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as tennis does not imply either an above-average knowledge of the sport or an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the game. The userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment; there is no need to generate a list of users who play the game. Also see the discussion for the related "basketball" category.

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

Category:User enc-0

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User enc-0 - Template:Lc1

0-level category. All others have been deleted. All the other nonsensical "Cajun English" categories should be deleted as well, but I'll leave that for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who love Wikipe-tan

"This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia". One of the least useful categories I have seen in a long time. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building. It seems that the category was created solely to supplement the userbox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to comment as the author - I thought it is normal practice to do it this way - to create userbox and then category. Well, if there is problem with that, I can delete the category (and the category code in the userbox) manually. --Have a nice day. Running 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is normal practice to do both (because many userbox creators don't read the relevant guideline), but that's not the way it's supposed to be. Wikipedia's guidelines for userbox creation state (bold in original): Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default. Userbox creation is generally given much wider latitude than user category creation, and when new and non-functional categories are created, the whole UCFD process has to be spun up to remove something that should not have been created in the first place. Horologium (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom (just in case my comment above did not make my position clear). Horologium (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play sudoku

Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Tons of people have played sudoku at least once, and additionally just because someone plays sudoku does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Finally, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - comparable to Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube (see CFD). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro

Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Just because someone "likes" Kakuro does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - comparable to Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube (see CFD). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports

Tons of people play or have played a fantasy sport at least once. Just because someone plays fantasy sports does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contribute to Fantasy sport. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who want a mogwai

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. krimpet✽ 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. Was tempted to speedy delete as such. Tons of precedent to delete, as categorizing wikipedians by desire does not contribute to the encyclopedia in the least. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Gaahhhhh. nonsense. Horologium (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be other Wikipedians who want a mogwai, and if we enable them to find each other, they could collaborate on articles pertaining to mogwais. I'm flabbergasted by this attempt to steamroll the mogwai initiative. For shame. (someone that doesn't like me should save this discussion in case I ever accept an RfA nomination). Equazcion •✗/C • 13:32, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

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

March 6

Category:Wikipedians from Worcester

Rename Category:Wikipedians from Worcester to Category:Wikipedians in Worcester, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: This category was recently discussed and renamed to the present title; however, there was some confusion regarding its actual purpose due to an ambiguous userbox... so here we are again. The user page of the sole user in the category states that he is actually not from Worcester, but rather resides there. Also, since there is more than one place called Worcester, it's better to include the name of the US state in the category title. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Looking at the category name, I would not have guessed we were talking about the town in Massachusetts, and I'm American. Horologium (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone to Category:Wikipedian mellophonists or Category:Wikipedian mellophone players

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. I am listing the nomination here, as opposed to the speedy nominations section, because I'm not certain whether "mellophonists" or "mellophone players" is more accurate. (Both terms receive an approximately equal number of hits in Google.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either per nom, pending further discussion. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota

Speedy rename to expand the postal abbreviation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that Apple Valley, Minnesota has a population of less than 50,000, which has previously been a standard for deletion. I also notice, however, that this category has 6 users, which distinguishes this category from past cases. I would recommend renaming to Category:Wikipedians in Dakota County, Minnesota to increase the scope of the category to a reasonable size. If no consensus for that, I support renaming per nom. That being said, this should probably be moved to the dated section for further comment. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a population of ca. 45500, it's just slightly below the informal cutoff point. The metro population is listed as nearly 3 million but I doubt that's accurate (I've left a note on the article's talk page), considering that Minnesota has a total population of about 5 million. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That figure is indeed correct, as the metro area includes a big chunk of Minnesota and a portion of Wisconsin as well. The Twin Cities are not too far from the state border, so their suburbs spill over to the neighboring state. In fact, the most recent census bureau estimate for the metro area is almost 3.2 million. [4] I have a link to that spreadsheet—the most recent metro area population estimates—on my user page, in the "Links for editing" section, should you ever need to verify figures for any others. Horologium (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to dated section at 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Humanist categories

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename both. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secular Humanist Wikipedians to Category:Secular humanist Wikipedians

Category:Spiritual Humanist Wikipedians to Category:Religious humanist Wikipedians

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation and match the the title of the main articles: Secular humanism and Religious humanism. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts

Rename Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts

The inclusion of "approved" in this category title gives the illusion of some sort of approval process, which does not currently exist. The category description already explains that having an alternate account is ok if in compliance with WP:SOCK. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What use are all these categories? Do we need to know who has alternate accounts? Does it help the project? I do have an alternative account, but see no need for it to be in a category. It is mentioned on my user page. --Bduke (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a valid reason to support deletion? There are admins out there who don't put themselves in the admin user category (some don't even have userpages). -- Ned Scott 04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out. "What use ..?" - None. "Do we need ..?" - No. "Does it help ..?" - No. "see no need .." - it does not help the Project. I thought that could be inferred from my "delete" comment. --Bduke (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're pretty much wrong on each one of those points, but thanks for making it clear what you meant. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you could return the favour and explain why I am wrong. What use to the project are these categories? --Bduke (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Useful, but I agree it needs a better name. --Kbdank71 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I would very much like to continue having a category of declared alternative accounts. It helps clarify a great many things, and, per BEANS, I am not going to into details. It would clarify even more, if listing were compulsory. DGG (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename DGG hit the nail on the head...but anyway, the category is needed, and there is no approval process. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per DGG. This category helps promote transperancy. GlassCobra 22:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As I understand it, this sort of category is not allowed, to prevent millions of unnecessary categories from being created. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was clearly intended in all good faith but seems a bit overenthusiastic - this category won't harm the encyclopaedia and probably assists transparency. Orderinchaos 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't care less on the fate of this category, since I do know my accounts, but this is created by the {{User Alternate Acc}} template, so i'm pretty sure that this is intended that way. Also note that we create a category when we mark sockpuppets, so I don't think there is a problem in marking legitimate accounts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested; moved to dated section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the category into Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. As I see it, we have two options here:
1. Speedily close this nomination, perhaps in favour of a more general discussion - at UCFD (in the form of a mass nomination) or on some other discussion page - regarding whether {{User Alternate Acc}} should categorise user pages, or
2. Leave this nomination open so that it can serve as a test case.
I essentially agree with the nominator's rationale, and only offer the first option in light of the fact that any edit to Template:User Alternate Acc will affect all subcategories of Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a way that listifying such categories (to one big list of all users and their alternate accounts) will work? I don't like the prospect of how many categories this would allow creation of, but the info should exist somewhere. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Alternate accounts, Wikipedia:List of alternate accounts of Wikipedians, or some similarly-titled page could work? I would support deletion even in the absence of listification, since I can think of little use for these types of categories. In order for the user page of an account to appear in this type of category, an editor must disclose which alternate accounts he or she has. Once that's done, the user page ties the accounts together and the category provides little added value. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Alternate Acc is a good idea and better than Template:User Alternate Acct, but it should not put the account into this type of category. They should all be deleted. I suggest closing htis discussion, and opening a new general discussion. Just another case of "Templates good; categories bad". --Bduke (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in police work

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in police work to Category:Wikipedians interested in law enforcement

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (law enforcement - a disambiguation page) and of WikiProject Law Enforcement. In addition, the scope of "law enforcement" is more defined and more universal than that of "police work", which can vary from country to country. That is, whereas the activity of law enforcement is essentially identical across the globe, the specific duties and powers of police agencies can and do vary significantly (for instance, compare the mandate of police agencies in Iceland or Denmark to those in Colombia and Iraq). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. GlassCobra 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all without prejudice for (re-)creation of "interested in" versions. I have restored Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons for such usage as may be wanted/warranted. The result is "delete" rather than "merge", because the intent of the categories as indicated by the several populating userboxes is clearly "who play", without indication of being interested in collaborating on the topic. This is comparable to the recent closing of the CCG-related categories. - jc37 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating-

Users who simply play these games are probably not interested in contributing to the articles on those games. We already have WikiProjects for at least some of these, as well as an over-arching RPG one, so joining that is preferable to using these categories if you do want to contribute. If you wish to just state the fact you play the game(s), a userbox or comment is fine. At minimum the parent category should be depopulated of individual users as too broad for collaborative purposes, and they should be renamed as 'users interested in' to give some collaborative use, though some of the sub-categories are possibly too narrow anyway. In any case, as I've said, such categories would be redundant to our WikiProjects. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on". Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize which users have played particular games or not. Stuff like Dungeons and Dragons is probably a large enough topic to facilitate collaboration, but the current category is not named for that. I'd probably support keeping an "interested in" category for that though. As for the others, it looks like they are too narrow even for an "interested in" category. VegaDark (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so change all to "interested in", which is presumably the case. Not everyone has adopted the method of working in wikiProjects yet. I dont see why any of these should be too narrow.DGG (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to presume that "play" = "interested in"? There are a whole host of activities that everyone does, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in collaborating on articles about those activities. I'm not insisting that this is the case with the categories involved in this nomination (I haven't yet taken a look at how they're populated), but I think a blanket presumption regarding interest is more likely to lead to miscategorisation than anything else. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are fine as they are. Why are all of these type categories being nominated for deletion just because they do not facilitate collaboration. Why are all of the community building categories being deleted. I don't want to have to go to the article, click Special:Whatlinkshere, then choose the User namespace, click OK, and then wait for it to show me every user page that is linked to that article just to find out who might play Dungeons and Dragons. I would rather have a category where I can find all of the other players of the game. Please, leave something that builds the community. - LA @ 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask a general question: why would you want or need to find out which Wikipedians play D&D or some other game? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the burning desire to know who else in the Wikipedia community actually plays the game. Interest does not denote experience with the subject. A person who is "interested" may only be interested in making the articles about the subject poor by draining the energy from them or the interest is by tagging every article about the subject for deletion. There are people whose only interest in the subject is to destroy it. I wouldn't object to a category for the Wikipedians who think Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic. It would keep the players and the objectors seperate. My question is, why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution? I would like know which Wikipedians play Dungeons and Dragons, are in Maryland, use ICQ, and have webpages. As people have been telling me recently in their objections to a merge, Wikipedia is not paper. It is nice to know who I can talk to outside Wikipedia about certain subjects. Just because I am insterested in geology doesn't mean that I am going to edit those articles. I know almost nothing about the subject, I just like looking at the pretty rocks. - LA @ 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the third paragraph about me on my user page, you will see that playing Dungeons and Dragons has sparked my interest in many non-gaming fields. - LA @ 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a number of points, but all essentially revolve around the question: "Why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution?" My short answer is that Wikipedia is not and should not become a directory of users grouped by every possible trivial characteristic. We should not maintain lists of people who support Hezbollah, miss Steve Irwin, don't own automobiles, like spicy food, enjoy soaking in Pepto-Bismol while wearing a sailor hat and clipping someone's toenails, or have any other characteristic that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. (By the way, the first four were actual categories and the latter is a reference to Rat Race -- a category for that particular fetish has, thankfully, not yet been created.) I think editors should be free to share with others as many of their habits, desires, and preferences as they like on their user page, but there is no reason for us to keep lists on the basis of these characteristics. For a more detailed explanation of my thoughts on the matter, please see this still-incomplete userspace page.
That said, my comment above applies to user categories generally and not necessarily to the categories included in this nomination. I am still neutral on most of these categories, as I'm trying to think of whether there is any plausible means by which they could faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my experience, nothing "builds the community" as much as successful collaboration on an article. It is actions and communications that build community, not an impersonal, automatically-generated directory of users. Enforcing the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of gamers or people by some other random personal detail unrelated to the encyclopedia does not undermine community-building. Thus, for me the only question is whether these categories facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, in light of the fact that "who play" does not imply "who are interested in collaborating on articles about" or "who can contribute non-OR encyclopedic content to articles about". Therefore,

Delete Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or merge into the D&D category - excessively limited collaborative scope: does not have a head article, Advanced D&D is just one of several updated versions of D&D
Delete Category:Wikipedians who play Big Eyes, Small Mouth - limited collaborative scope: single-article category
Weak delete Category:Wikipedians who play Shadowrun - single-user category; perhaps encourage the user to switch to an "interested in" category
Weak delete Category:Wikipedians who play World of Darkness games - single-user category; perhaps encourage the user to switch to an "interested in" category
Neutral on the rest, per discussion with LA elsewhere. ~~pending a response/clarification to my question to LA above~~

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons into Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons. AD&D is no longer used by Wizards of the Coast for the newer versions of D&D and there is no need to be that specific. - LA @ 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian moms

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete - G4: recreation of material deleted per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian moms - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Orphaned and lonely, only one user The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Theist Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to delete - No prejudice against renomination (as in any "no consensus" closure) to discuss this for use as merely as a parent category. - jc37 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theist Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category has been nominated for deletion three times already, and I do not wish to restart a debate about whether these types of categories are inherently collaborative. However, I think that prior discussions failed to consider several key issues unique to this category, probably because the prior discussions were group nominations of Category:Wikipedians by religion or Category:Wikipedians by philosophy.

This category has a relatively vague scope, and it doesn't give us any especially useful information about the users it contains. It tells us that they believe in the existence of a deity or deities, but doesn't tell us which one(s). The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities. Moreover, this category is redundant to other existing categories, such as the specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians interested in theism, and does not make a unique contribution to the encyclopedia.

Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities". VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no problem with this category. I personally believe in God, I don't adhere to any particular religion, and, at least in my country, believing in God is not something "almost everyone does". Stating that one believes in God and not mentioning any religion is a significant religious and philosophical statement in itself that users ought to be allowed to express on par with adherents of various religious and philosophical denominations. __meco (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to limit anyone's self-expression; however, userboxes and user page notices already serve the purpose of self-identification. What reason is there to maintain a directory of Wikipedians who are theists? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, user category does nothing to advance the encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a meta-category for subcategories. Even user-cats benefit from category trees (and a lot more should fall under this one). bd2412 T 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by religion already serves as an even more inclusive parent category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that token, Category:Wikipedians already serves as an even more inclusive parent category. __meco (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion could be placed into Category:Theist Wikipedians, and vice versa. The same is obviously not true of either of those two categories and Category:Wikipedians. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. On this one, I think that several of the assumptions made here are fundamentally wrong, and the demographics of Wikipedia need to be taken into account. While it is true that a sizable majority of people in the Americas, Northern Africa and the Arabian Subcontinent, and those on the Indian subcontinent are theistic, that is not so for much of Europe and Asia (where Atheism and Buddhism, respectively, are widespread). Further, the demographics here tend to skew towards non-theism; groups such as the Brights are severely over-represented in Wikipedia, and parody religions such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which are largely unknown outside the insular world of the internet) have a lot of interest here. I'd like to see the category turned into another organizational (parent-only) category, with no editors as direct members, but there should be a distinction between theistic and non-theistic beliefs. Horologium (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of our business how WPedians want to characterise their religion. it is perfectly possible that someone may want to characterise himself this way without meaning anything more specific, so I'd keep it a a real category, not just a parent one. DGG (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just as valid as Category:Christian Wikipedians in my mind. Might seem vague, but you could say the same thing about some people's beliefs. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 1

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - Feel free to continue to "raise awareness" through the (presumably) already existing userpage notices (such as userboxes). - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unlike similar categories for recent changes and new page patrollers, this category does not facilitate collaboration. There is no special knowledge or expertise that random page patrollers possess that could be useful for someone else. It's just a matter of clicking "Random article" and editing. The userbox is adequate to convey this information; there is no need to maintain a listing of random page patrollers.

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more of a trivial fact. I agree, a userbox is enough to convey this message. Youngwebprogrammer (Talk)
Delete per nom, although I am not necessarily convinced the other two categories mentioned in the nom are particularly useful either. What purpose would one have to seek out a new page patroller or a recent changes patroller? I guess that argument can be saved for another UCFD, however. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could perhaps seek out advice regarding effective techniques for new page/recent changes patrolling (e.g. how to spot questionable articles or edits, whether/how to tag an article or revert an edit, what notice/warning to issue). Of course, all of this information could be obtained by posting a question at one of any number of talk pages, so perhaps the categories are not all that useful after all. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good way of improving WP, and I think there's no reason to deprecate it. I thik a lot of people actually do this--many more than list themselves here--and perhaps seeing this will encourage others. DGG (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that random page patrol is a good way of improving articles (in fact, I am one of the users in this category), but how does the category affect improvement? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Raising awareness for a method and encouraging others is a very good and logical reason for a user category, and certainly does help us build the encyclopedia. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "raising awareness"? How does the mere existence of a category raise awareness beyond what is already done by Wikipedia:Random page patrol and the "Random article" link in the standard WP navigation box on the left side of the screen. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who push random buttons

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for people who are interested in(?) the template mentioned at Wikipedia:Random Button. This apparently isn't even a Wikiproject (and rightfully so, as I can't imagine you can make a Wikiproject out of that) and as far as I can see serves no purpose to categorize. At very minimum needs a rename to get rid of "Users" at the start, as per standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much too vague; does not seem to be oriented toward collaboration. Wikipedia:Random Button#Userbox states that users should "use this userbox to note that [they] press The Random Button or ... other random buttons". OK, but ... so what? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems almost juvenile and has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a userbox at most, but not a category of users. Youngwebprogrammer (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is another category for userpage template usage. Horologium (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User LB22

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete - criterion G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). I will inform the user of the Special:Prefixindex function. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual user category, precedent to delete at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches to Category:Wikipedian admin coaches. - jc37 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian admin coaches (standard naming convention, capitals). VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/speedy rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Incidentally, which parent category is most suitable for this case: Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status or Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration (or one of the subcats thereof)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Devil May Cry

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per lots of precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by video game. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all video game categories that regard wikipedians who play certain video games, have been deleted. This one should be no exception. Youngwebprogrammer (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in a region

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in a region to Category:Wikipedians by regional interest or similar

Nominator's rationale: A category for Wikipedians interested in an unspecified region is not especially useful, so this category should function as a parent category only. To that end, it should be renamed to a title that more accurately reflects its purpose. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This sorely needs a rename (and possible pruning). It seems that this is supposed to be about Political divisions and Country subdivisions, not geography. (Or perhaps it is both, in which case a "split" for clarity is in order.) "Region" is just too unclear. Suggestions welcome. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (and depopulate the single user in the category). I don't particularly have a problem with the broadness of "region", and if that is a problem, we can always add subcategories for "Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by geographic interest" and recategorize as appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could rename it to "Wikipedians by country interest", move the categories for ancient civilisations to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history, and use the broad regional categories (e.g. Africa, the Caribbean) as parent categories for individual country categories. In that way, it would approximate the category structure of Category:Wikipedians by location. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, that sounds like a good idea. Though Category:Wikipedians by interest in countries (or "...in a country") sounds better. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think either of the two offered alternatives ("Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by interest in a country") would be an improvement over the current name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Wikipedians by interest in a country" does sound better. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all its subcategories as none of them assist in encyclopedia-building. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting our time. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get people to write an encyclopedia rather than maintaining useless categories is actually an attempt to get them to stop wasting their time. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who has used user categories for collaboration, I can safely say you're wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been open for nearly 13 days and has received relatively little comment. Relisting in lieu of a "no consensus" result. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Re-stating): Support: "We could rename it to "Wikipedians by interest in countries", move the categories for ancient civilisations to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history, and use the broad regional categories (e.g. Africa, the Caribbean) as parent categories for individual country categories. In that way, it would approximate the category structure of Category:Wikipedians by location." - Only change to the text was to substitute the rename target as discussed above. - jc37 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my comments directly above from "...in a country" to "...in countries". I'd like to sidestep any potential future drama concerning whether such-n-such name is one country or two. - jc37 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created as Category:Wikipedians who travel. It was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16 in an effort to shift focus toward collaboration, but I believe that the rename may have introduced miscategorisation by placing in this category people who like to travel but have no interest in the subject of traveling (see the category description). In addition, I don't believe that this category is viable even as a genuine interest category, simply because the topic of "travel" is too broad and ambiguous (see Category:Travel). (See also the deletion discussions for the related Category:Wikipedians who visit countries and its child categories.)

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but possibly allow recreation as a parent category if appropriate subcategories pop up (but perhaps such a parent category would be better named Category:Wikipedians by travel interest. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - With no prejudice of creating one with a clearer name, as suggested in the discussion. - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The collaborative scope of this category, if any, is limited to one or a few articles only. Also, judging from the text of the userbox that populates the category (User:Tilman Piesk/hexadecimal), this seems to be a recreation of Category:Wikipedians who like hexadecimal (CFD discussion).

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, the collaborative scope of this category is not limited to articles like hexadecimal, binary, web colours, nibble, byte, powers of two and things like that, but also includes logic related topics like bitwise operations, logic gates, truth tables, logical connectives, propositional calculus (the nibbles link them together) and even articles like Fermat numbers and Mersenne numbers. Not to forget BBP-type formulae.

I understand, that the base preference categories have been deleted - to know that someone prefers base 12 or 60 is indeed not really helpful, and the only related article seems to be highly composite number. But binary numbers with a power-of-two number of digits (that means: hexadecimal numbers) are a intersection of so many fields, that I consider it helpful, to have a category for Wikipedians interested in this intersection.

(By the way: The intersection (set theory) matches the four digit binary number 0001, and thus the hexadecimal 1. Just an example.)

So please don´t be too radical : ) The existence of this category is not a step back to things like Category:Wikipedians who like ternary or Category:Wikipedians who like hexagesimal. Greetings, Tilman Piesk (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A category that would support collaboration on all those pages sounds good, but I'm not convinced the current name reflects that very well. Any rename option you can think of that would better convey all those articles as potential collaboration topics? VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until there is a better name. DGG (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 28

Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians

Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a redundant category, as both Category:Wikipedians in Chile and Category:American_Wikipedians already cover this. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFD. Procedural relisting at correct forum. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge to Category:Chilean Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians. The scope of the category is too narrow and, more generally, I don't believe it facilitates encyclopedic collaboration. I don't think one can assume that Chilean Americans possess an above-average ability or desire to collaborate on articles about Chilean American people, organisations, culture, and the like. Some likely will, but others will not. In general, I don't think we can judge about editors' interests and abilities solely on the basis of their identities (e.g. I edit articles related mostly to Africa, yet have no personal connection to the contintent). A similar case can be found at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Arab Canadian Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge per above. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Interior

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Alaska WODUP (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is for Wikipedians from Fairbanks, the Tanana Valley, and elsewhere in the Interior region of Alaska." - Needs a rename to clarify what the category is for at minimum. However, this is a single user category, so my first choice would be to upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Alaska. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the Sims probably has enough articles to collaborate on, this category is populated by a lone userbox page with no actual users. Additionally, the userbox text is "This user enjoys playing the Sims", so any users adding the userbox would be miscategorized. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, without prejudice of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - miscategorisation: "enjoys playing the Sims" != interested in improving articles related to the Sims. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild food has been deleted, so this category can not facilitate collaboration. Single-user category that has existed over a year. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - serves no purpose. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No article=no cat. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single user category despite existing for nearly 3 years, does not help the encyclopedia to categorize those who are invited to particular wiki-meetups. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - even if this category was useful at some point in the past, it is not useful anymore. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity

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

The result of the discussion was: UpMerge Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history - jc37 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in classical antiquity

Nominator's rationale: Antiquity is a disambiguation page, and the term may refer to classical antiquity or ancient history in general. Judging from the page description and userbox, the category seems to be oriented toward the former meaning. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history - At best, (and only if renamed per nom) this should be a parent cat divided by the subsections of Classical antiquity. (Category:Wikipedians interested in the Roman empire, for example.) - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are "interest" categories for ancient Carthage, Egypt, Greece, Persia and Rome, but all are currently subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history and Category:Wikipedians interested in a region. I suppose it boils down to the question of whether an intermediary layer of categorisation for "classical antiquity" is needed... All in all, I can't say that I oppose upmerging. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per Jc37. to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history , but keep as a real category for the broadly interested, not just a parent. DGG (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 24

Category:Kosovo independence supporters

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Kosovo independence supporters to article Wikipedians who support Kosovo's independence

Nominator's rationale: Category meant for userboxes improperly named. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:UCFD Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to UCFD from CFD by me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as support/oppose category. VegaDark (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark. --Kbdank71 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per VegaDark and precedent. Horologium (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as a political issue support/oppose category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User nds-NL

Category:User nds-NL-1

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User nds-NL

Category:User nds-NL-1

single user cat. It seems that the user has created this cat on several language Wikipedias (with it having been apparently deleted on one of them), though still being a single user cat in those places as well. If no consensus to delete, upmerge -1 to the parent. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as useless as all the Babel categories. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'comment on previous deletion rationale. My own experience of babel categories is that they are by far the most useful. Just to give an example: a question of notability about an Egyptian TV presenter might better be answered by someone with Arabic who is not on a TV-project, than by anybody particularly involved in TV projects. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever exist in a particular language/dialect, IMO we should delete the category for it. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark. --Kbdank71 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or up-merge. I'm not sure what the problem here is, nor am I aware of the "needs a local Wiki" requirement. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Upmerge to Category:User nds and Category:User nds-1.~~ I think that "regional dialect" categories (see here for past discussions) do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The primary usefulness of the Babel categories lies in their relationship to translation, yet regional dialects generally differ from the main language in terms of speech rather than writing, and it is the latter that is relevant to collaborative translation efforts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Useless categories that are lonely, with only one user each. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not anything other than a dialect of Dutch, and doesn't need a cat, and especially doesn't need Babelization for a single user. Horologium (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Torlak

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Torlak - single user category, and one of a regional dialect. - jc37 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per several precedents, as nominator. - jc37 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as useless as all other user-by-language categories. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever exist in a particular language/dialect, IMO we should delete the category for it. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark (I'm seeing a pattern here...) --Kbdank71 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Although being a single-user category is a common reason for deletion (or merging), the fact that the category was created relatively recently and was created for a specifically collaborative purpose suggests that it may be appropriate to "give it time to grow". (I will not address the issue of how much value is inherent in a user category for a topic that is already covered by an active WikiProject, as there does not seem to be clear consensus on the issue -- similar questions have been raised in prior discussions, and my perception is based as much on the content of prior discussions as it is on this one.) Since the category's creator and sole member has expressed support for deletion if the category does not attract new members within a month of its creation, it might be best to revisit the issue in a few weeks, assuming no new arguments or ideas for renaming/reorganising are developed before then. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles (See bibliophile)

or

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to category:Wikipedians interested in book history (See History of the book)

or

Delete - single member category.

Comment - Unsure as yet, waiting for more discussion. - jc37 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not help users contribute to writing an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the two rename proposals would result in single-article categories, which is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Collaboration can occur on the talk pages of bibliophile and History of the book, a category is not necessary for this. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that everybody who is willing to share their expertise will be going out of their way to contribute to talkpages. -Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to give it time to grow, I know from the first discussion on the depopulating of Wikipedians interested in books that there may be people out there that are interested in books themselves, not the contents. This could be the a category of people who would improve articles on such things as book binding, book publishing methods, book media, history of books, etc. Since Wikipedians interested in books was depopulated such a short time ago, and this category created in response to that, give it time to grow. I suggest that it be revisited in a few months. - LA @ 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People who would improve articles on book binding, publishing methods, etc., etc., can and should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Participants. There's no need for a category. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of wikiprojects is that they bring together those interested in systematically contributing to wikipedia in a particular field. I am already a member of two; more would rather overload me. Categories, in contrast, are a way of finding people with expertise in a particular field even if it is not the main area of their activity on wikipedia (at least, that's how I use them). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Paularblaster says, WikiProjects are just one of many ways we collaborate, and a full-on project is not always required. In fact, WP:PROJECT's guidelines even recommend topical collaboration outside of a WikiProject when that's all that is needed. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, there is an existing WikiProject. And even collaboration outside WikiProjects doesn't require categories. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing requires anything, but it helps. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

creator's comment. I recently created this category, with this name, to replace the now defunct "bibliophile" category which seems to have become an overpopulated catch-all for people interested in books in a variety of senses (also, incidentally, a problem with Wikiproject Books, which is more about literature than it is about books). The category is not intended exclusively for book historians, but also for those interested in book design, layout, bindings, etc. Hence neither "bibliophile" (which people take simply to mean "likes books") nor "book history" seemed entirely appropriate. The purpose is to provide a category for those willing to provide expertise in these areas even if their main contributions to wikipedia fall outside this field. I am myself an academic specializing in 16th and 17th-century print culture, but wikipedia is a hobby: my contributions are in areas that interest me more incidentally (and in any case it would be hard not to fall into OR, on top of which wikipedia is not a form of publication that looks good on an academic CV); nevertheless, I am perfectly happy to make my expertise available for anyone asking for it. This, I would have thought, is the reason for having categories as well as projects. If, in a month's time, nobody else has added themselves to the category then I would certainly be in favour of deletion. I should say, as the creator of this category, it would have been nice to receive notification of this discussion rather than stumble upon it - but CfD and AfD seem to have rather different etiquette. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comment. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 22

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio - Template:Lc1

Note: This is a group nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio and its subcategories. Detailed nomination rationales for the subcategories are offered below.

Nominator's rationale: This category is too vague to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration – indeed, it is too vague to be useful as anything other than a parent category. "Radio" can refer to the "medium of wireless communication" in general, specific radio technologies, the activity of radio broadcasting, specific radio broadcasts, radio frequencies, the electronic device, and a host of other things. Since there is no reason to expect that an interest in one implies an interest the others, the category effectively fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains.

If all subcategories are deleted, then delete; if all subcategories are not deleted, then depopulate of user pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and let people choose how specific they wish to be. DGG (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate, keep as a parent category if any of the subcategories remain. If not, delete as empty, but allow recreation as a parent category if suitable subcategories are ever created (currently I would support deleting all subcategories, but I could support keeping some subcategories if they had an "interested in" naming convention). VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parent category and all subcategories. None of them helps users write an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you new here? That's obviously not true. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here about a year longer than you have, and it obviously is true. User categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're just blind. This isn't something "in theory", it's something that actually happens on a daily bases. I've contacted other editors via such categories, and I've been contacted via similar categories. Facts would suggest that your generalization that all user cats are useless is wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal attack. Arguing with people is so much easier when they undermine themselves. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Angr. I'm interested in lots of things, watch many tv shows and listen to different radio shows, none of which I have an interest in writing about. --Kbdank71 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either as a parent category, or as a non-detailed interest category per DGG. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 days later... I don't whether this discussion is a difficult one to close or whether it's just escaped notice for such a long time. In any case, in the hope of restarting the process (or the conversation), I'm posting a brief recap of the discussion (if I inaccurately or inadequately represent one or more arguments, please modify my comments as necessary and feel free to hurl a fish or two in my direction -- I prefer salmon, by the way.)
Of 7 participants, 2 support straightforward deletion, 3 support deletion contingent on deletion of the subcats (see the nominations below), and 2 oppose deletion. The arguments offered include:

For deleting
does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration or help users to write an encyclopedia - reasons vary but include:
"too vague to be useful ... fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains"

"user categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building"

interest in something, watching a TV programme, or listening to a radio show does not translate into an interesting in writing about these subjects

For keeping
editors should be allowed to "choose how specific they wish to be"

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of the subcategories are now on deletion review, so I don't know if this can be closed until that is over. If that closes as endorse, this looks like a pretty clear delete. If it closes as overturn and relist, then this will likely have to wait even longer to be closed until after the relisted categories get closed. *yawn* VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by radio talk shows

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. east.718 at 04:19, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Car Talk - zero-user, single-article (Car Talk) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern - (The Howard Stern Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Le Show - single-user, single-article (Le Show) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and the Mad Dog - single-article category (Mike and the Mad Dog)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and Mike in the Morning - single-article category (Mike and Mike in the Morning)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nobody Likes Onions - single-user, single-article (Nobody Likes Onions) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Opie and Anthony - single-article category (Opie and Anthony)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush Limbaugh - (The Rush Limbaugh Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Ed Schultz Show - single-user, single-article (The Ed Schultz Show) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Herd - single-article category (The Herd with Colin Cowherd)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Iain Lee Show - single-user category, lacks a corresponding article (The Iain Lee Show, Iain Lee Show), the show is mentioned in the Iain Lee biographical article

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Stephanie Miller Show - single-article category (The Stephanie Miller Show)

Nominator's rationale: The collaborative potential of these categories, if any, is in most cases limited to one article only. Moreover, it is questionable whether merely listening to a radio talk show implies any type of above-average ability or desire to improve articles about these shows. Knowledge of what was said on a talk show, which is the type of knowledge that is most likely to be gained from listening to the show, is not especially useful in an encyclopedic context, for two reasons. First, additions based on such knowledge are likely to be minor trivia -- although there will be exceptions. Second, per WP:UNDUE, articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". That is, that something was stated on a radio talk show should be mentioned in an article only if reliable sources deem it noteworthy, irrespective of how important, interesting, or controversial an individual user thinks it to be. In the end, the knowledge that matters is knowledge of and access to these reliable sources, not knowledge of the transcript of a talk show.

Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Not a whole lot I could add to that, so I'll just say "per nom" : ) - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These categories are not useful for collaboration in any way, unlike the network categories below. Horologium (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, and my comments above. --Kbdank71 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians by panelist game shows

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. east.718 at 04:20, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue - (I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue}

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Just a Minute - (Just a Minute)

Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

Delete both as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think that these are similar to those who watch game shows, noting though that the former is a parody, and both are comedic. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Categorizing by "who listens" simply does not translate to "interested in collaborating on". Additionally, the scope seems too narrow for a category. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. --Kbdank71 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians by radio series

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show - (The Goon Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Navy Lark - (The Navy Lark)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Round the Horne - (Round the Horne)

Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - If we keep TV series, then we should keep these. Same reasons, same rationales. We shouldn't discriminate by media type. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I agree with jc37 that it might create a double standard to delete these but keep the TV series categories, I fully support deleting (or renaming) all the tv series categories, so I have no proplem with dealing with these first. Additionally the TV categories will have articles on individual episodes to collaborate on, which the radio shows will not have, so I'm not even entirely convinced that if we have those we should keep these. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity

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

The result of the discussion was: deleted by User:East718. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially divisive, "not" category, lots of precedent to delete. Listing in speedy for another admin to confirm. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems to be more a "Support/Oppose" cat. Should probably be moved to main nomination section. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A nonsense category, per nom. seicer | talk | contribs 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as divisive; this will not help build the encyclopedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as per other similar catgs deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. The userbox is sufficient to convey this information. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Xbox Ambassadors have shown themselves to be willing to assist other Xbox users with problems and having a category for those looking for assistance that may have to do with both Xbox and Wikipedia is worthwhile. the category has utility, moreso than many other user-affiliation categories. furthermore, nominator has not proved disutility. xenocidic (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care anymore. Whatever BlackFalcon decides. xenocidic (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. A userbox is sufficient for this. There's no need to clutter up WP with redundant or useless categories that are not wholly relevant to WP. Seicer (t | c) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument could be made against Category:Rouge editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 'clutter' argument fails Wikipedia:PERFORMANCE. xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (incidentally, I intend to nominate that category shortly). As for WP:PERFORMANCE, it makes an argument about server space and server performance only; however, clutter also impedes the ability of human editors to navigate through and make use of user categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware my argument was a logical fallacy. It was also an argumentum ad hominem, but you missed the bonus points for that one. =) xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rogue editors actually came about from a mess at ANI over Category:Rogue Administrators. Seicer (t | c) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per nom. This is essentially a form of "Wikipedians by gaming website".~~ Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) - rationale changed Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Xbox Ambassadors are hand picked by Microsoft staff. xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of Xbox Ambassadors, after having read the relevant section in the main article, is that they are the equivalents of Wikipedia administrators: "hand picked community members" who are supposed to be "helpful towards other ... members and are willing to assist new ... users". That is, their designation is more likely to reflect their experience, commitment, and personality than any subject-specific knowledge. Is that not (mostly) accurate? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, but they do have working knowledge of Xbox 360, Xbox Live, and Microsoft support channels. xenocidic (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "working knowledge", do you mean knowledge needed to operate a Xbox 360 and work in/with Xbox Live or knowledge that could be relevant to making non-original research contributions to articles? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being Xbox Ambassadors they are much more in touch with the Xbox "scene" than run-of-the-mill Xbox users would be. Wikipedians who are also Xbox Ambassadors are very likely to contribute relevantly to articles, which is why I humbly maintain the category is worthwhile. xenocidic (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll need a little time to think about this, and I will post back here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listening to my arguments. I respect whatever decision you make in this matter. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this page, I still support deletion, although for a diffrent reason. While I can see how this type of categorisation could hypothetically be useful in some cases, I don't feel that this type of category is a good way of categorising users with the ability and/or desire to contribute to articles related to Xbox. It seems to me that "Wikipedians by alternate website status" are too prone to categorisation-for-identification as opposed to categorisation-for-collaboration, and would support independent creation of a more directly collaboration-oriented (e.g. interest) category for Xbox. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and Black Falcon. The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that these are not supposed to be votes, but a venue for building consensus. If you have nothing at all to add to the discussion, why bother? xenocidic (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you have to participate in the discussion to comment on deletion, when the points have already been made? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. If you have nothing to add, then there's no reason to comment. It's unhelpful. xenocidic (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. In addition to that there is a genuine problem here. Your arguments basically amount to "we were hand-picked by X organization or company hence we should have a user category to locate each other". That is fundamentally wrong. I don't have a problem with a category for users interested in Xbox but this isn't it. No one is stopping you from contributing to Wikipedia regardless of the category, you don't need it so we don't need to make an exception. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Xbox Ambassadors are, by their very nature, interested in Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of performing the actions required to be selected. on a related note, Interesting quote by nominator -

“

User categories should exist for the purpose of finding others, not for the purpose of self identification.

”

(source). By their own words, the nominator seems to support this category. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding others for a Wikipedia-furthering purpose, is what the implication was. I don't believe this category does that (although I would support a category called "Wikipedians interested in Xbox" or something similar). VegaDark (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Having read up on usercats, I am beginning to see the reason why this usercat might not qualify for the proposal and have changed my vote to "don't care anymore". It was a fun argument, while it lasted. No hard feelings. xenocidic (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. This category serves one purpose only, to allow people hand-picked by Microsoft as ambassadors to find each other. Any other purpose can be achieved through a broader category. No thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too myspace for a encyclopedia.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dozens of myspacian listings, but you comment only on the Xbox 360-related ones? Thanks for your input "Playstation" dude. xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Xbox 360

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people "like" Xbox 360 i'd imagine. Not helpful to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is you wanna delete this you better delete all other "Wikipedians who like" categories. This is an outrage. --123Pie (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly true, although many have been deleted (see here). It's all a matter of how much of a relationship there seems to be between a particular "like" and an interest in improving the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian's who like Xbox 360 are very likely to improve Xbox 360 related articles. xenocidic (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That statement must assume either that any random like can translate into an encyclopedically-relevant interest or that there is something special about Xbox 360. I personally don't feel that either assumption is justified (e.g. I like luxury cars, yet I'm not at all likely to improve articles related to luxury cars). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per drive-by nomination with dubious justification. xenocidic (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, If this get change from like to have, can it stay? --Pie 's can talk! 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would introduce miscategorization problems (people who like the 360 might not own one). I don't see why this category needs deleted in the first place, let's let the CFD run its' course. xenocidic (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a grouping of users who like an admittedly nifty piece of electronic equipment does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. People like many objects, including Xbox 360s, luxury cars, gold watches, jewelry, expensive laptops, but it does not help to create groupings of users on the basis of these likes. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the same argument not apply to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_who_watch ? But in those, you only proposed renamed. xenocidic (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not. More than anything, that was a procedural nomination, and it's possible that I'll later nominate one or more of those categories for deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not an extension of MySpace. What will we have next? Those who like the Nintendo Wii? Computers? Halo? A Butterfinger's candy bar? The list can go on, and we'd be stuck with hundreds of trivial categories that do not add value to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Seicer (t | c) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it was meant to be so Xbox users can find other Xbox users and ask for help, as wikipedians are serposed to help. --Pie 's can talk! 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For general help regarding questions unrelated to Wikipedia, there is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. However, in general, we don't (and shouldn't) maintain lists of users for reasons that are unrelated to building the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Seicer (t | c) and per nom. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, gives me a list of people to track down and shoot their Xboxen with my Three Ring Ray of Doom. I'm kidding, of course, this isn't a useful category. Editors who need to discuss 360-related articles will naturally find each other via the talk pages. Sockatume (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Too myspace for a encyclopedia.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Meher Baba

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per CSD C1 (empty category) and CSD G7 (author request). The category (and userbox) creator emptied the category and consented to deletion at the category talk page. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual, categorizing by individual is too narrow for collaboration. Possibly redundant to Category:Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because it's "one person" doesn't mean anything one way or another. {{Meher Baba}} alone suggests that this is a perfectly good user category, and is not too narrow for collaboration. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

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

The result of the discussion was: see below. There are three main issue at stake: purpose, scope and WP:POINT.

I don't think that anyone disputes that this category does not (directly, at least) facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. In fact, it is marked as a humour category. Given that there is precedent for retaining some humour pages, the question then becomes whether this should be such a case. Without making any judgment on that point specifically, I do wish to note two points:

When it comes to categories (as opposed to, say, user pages or pages in the Wikipedia namespace), there is fairly consistent precedent against humour categories (see various discussions linked here).
A humour page is effective only if it is generally perceived to be humorous; such a page is not likely to be appropriate if it is a source of controversy, ill will, disruption, or anything else that hurts the encyclopedia or detracts from an atmosphere of collaboration. With this category, there is no consensus that it does not have any negative side-effects.

Various discussions (at UCFD and MFD) have produced a relatively consistent consensus that Wikipedia is not appropriate for random humour that is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. It's safe to say that this catgory is Wikipedia-related, as it was created in response to a specific incident that took place on Wikipedia. This brings us to the third issue...

This category was created in response to a specific incident which involved a certain degree of controversy, hostility, and/or bitterness, and there is no question that it was created to make a point. Whether it is actively disruptive in the process of making this point can be disputed to some extent; however:

The point made by the category targets (comments made by) a single user, and said user has expressed dissatisfaction with the existence of this category.
In continuing to make a point, the category perpetuates the dispute/conflict/incident. This is most certainly unproductive.

Thus, considering all of these factors together, the result is delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the rouge admins category is dealt with, I think this can safely be nominated. WP:POINT creation during that discussion that serves no purpose towards encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for as long as there are editors or admins who haven't read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Aids encyclopædia building by reminding people to read what is on the screen before leaping to judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junk. – Steel 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense. Seicer (t | c) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The category that resulted in the creation of this POINTy cat is gone now, and this should disappear as well. Horologium (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insulting nonsense and per WP:POINT. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I am wondering what disruption this category causes... -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "...FREAKING BIG HUGE PURPLE BOX" (doesn't really flow presently). xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't violate WP:POINT without making a disruption (making a point alone is fine). -- Ned Scott 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned. Making a point isn't the point of WP:POINT to prohibit :) Only a disruptive action, taken only to make a point, is what WP:POINT prohibits. The mere existence of a category doesn't disrupt anything, unless it's overtly offensive to a specific group or some similar problem, but this doesn't seem to have any such issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:22, 27 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Mostly harmless. There are bigger fish to fry. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is having this category causing a problem? WP:POINT is not violated because there is no disruption. Alexfusco⁵ 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this childish nonsense; the encyclopedia is that way. -_- krimpet✽ 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha. Best rationale ever. I'm convinced. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:24, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008

Single article category, hence pointless to have a category for. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - collaborative potential, if any, is limited to one article only: Rövarspråket. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who try not to worry

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who try not to worry - Template:Lc1

Useless, lots of past precedent to delete similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random, miscellaneous sentiment (see precedent). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as no content, no users are in the Category. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the talk page of the category: "I created this page. However, I am okay with it being deleted. I already removed the destination from the user box that pointed to it. Thank you. Tommytocker (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)", thus might qualify for WP:CSD#G7. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 305: / Line 305: @@
 === March 3 ===
 ==== Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories ====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''
+:''The result of the discussion was:''  '''Delete all''' without prejudice for (re-)creation of "interested in" versions. I have restored [[:Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons]] for such usage as may be wanted/warranted. The result is "delete" rather than "merge", because the ''intent'' of the categories as indicated by the several populating userboxes is clearly "who play", without indication of being interested in collaborating on the topic. This is comparable to [[Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February_2008#Category:Wikipedians who play CCGs|the recent closing]] of the CCG-related categories. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 Nominating-
 *[[:Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game]]
@@ Line 332: / Line 337: @@
 :'''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])</sup> 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 ::*'''Merge''' [[:Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons]] into [[:Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons]]. AD&D is no longer used by Wizards of the Coast for the newer versions of D&D and there is no need to be ''that'' specific. - [[User:Lady Aleena|LA]] @ 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
+----
+:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>
 ==== Category:Wikipedian moms ====

Revision as of 15:36, 14 March 2008

Speedy nominations

Category:Wikipedians in Gary

Category:Wikipedians from Billings Montana

Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge

Category:Wikipedians in Allentown

New nominations by date

March 14

Category:User tsolyáni

Category:User wenedyk

Category:User tokipona

Category:Phantastic Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans

Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans

Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series

Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang

March 13

Category:Users that are weird

Category:User enc and all subcategories

Category:Users that also have a WikiAlmanac account

Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists

March 10

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

Category:Wikipedians who read Tolkien

Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia

Category:Wikipedians who like Harry Potter

Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble

Category:Wikipedians who play Diplomacy

Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games

March 9

Category:Wikipedians who play tennis

March 7

Category:User enc-0

Category:Wikipedians who love Wikipe-tan

Category:Wikipedians who play sudoku

Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro

Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports

Category:Wikipedians who want a mogwai

March 6

Category:Wikipedians from Worcester

Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone

March 5

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN

Humanist categories

Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr

Category:Wikipedians interested in police work

March 3

Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories

Category:Wikipedian moms

Category:Theist Wikipedians

March 1

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

Category:Users who push random buttons

Category:User LB22

Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches

Category:Wikipedians who like Devil May Cry

Category:Wikipedians interested in a region

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers

February 28

Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians in the Interior

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims

Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food

Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup

Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity

February 24

Category:Kosovo independence supporters

Category:User nds-NL

Category:User nds-NL-1

Category:User Torlak

Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects

February 22

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio

Wikipedians by radio talk shows

Wikipedians by panelist game shows

Wikipedians by radio series

Category:Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity

Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors