Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:09, 1 April 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 29

Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television

Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television

Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television

Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television

The problem is that categorising by genre is rather subjective. M*A*S*H is just one of many examples. (And I don't think we should get into the "dramedy" debate either). - jc37 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series (presuming the result of the discussion below). - jc37 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I support deletion or rename of all subcategories, though, but until they are nominated this is a good interim action. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator of the categories. The series that fit more than one category can be put in more than one category. These categories were created to clean up the parent category. It was a complete mess before these categories were created. Those that fit both categories have been categorized as such. This category was in a sibling category to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre called Category:Wikipedians interested in television by genre that looks to have been depopulated and deleted which I will now have to DFR. - LA @ 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:37, 20 March 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 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pause and reorganize per LA. This will be a lot easier if we are able to evaluate these categories together and get some larger community discussion about what we're doing with them. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television and subcats

Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television

Category:Wikipedians who like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Category:Wikipedians who like Late Night with Conan O'Brien

Category:Wikipedians who like the Late Show with David Letterman

Category:Wikipedians who like The O'Reilly Factor

Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain

Category:Wikipedians who like The Soup - not even a talk show, but rather a show which highlights talk shows.

Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC - per this discussion

Delete all as essentially single article categories, and per various precedent, specifically these talk shows. - jc37 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the CNBC category (watching a TV station does not imply any ability or desire to improve articles about the station) and weak delete the rest as sparsely-populated (in some cases, such as Category:Wikipedians who like The Soup, single-user) categories with limited collaborative scope (in most cases, such as Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain, limited to a single article). All user categories do need to revolve around facilitating encyclopedic collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Talk television" category as being fairly broad. Other than that, I agree with BF. —Scouter Sig 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Attempting to discern clarity) - By agreeing with BF, you're saying: Strong delete of CNBC, and Weak delete of the rest, but suggesting to Keep the parent category? - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; Keep Talk TV, delete the rest. The parent/main category is broad enough to be useful as a collaboration/information source, but no so specific as to be divisive. I'm thinking it is on par with a "Talk radio" category. —Scouter Sig 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Though note that the "talk radio" categories have all been recently deleted. - jc37 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support keeping the parent category. Thought it will become a candidate for speedy deletion (C1 - empty) if the subcategories are removed, a C1 deletion can be overturned without any formal review if ever there is a need for an actual "interest" category (as opposed to a parent category) for talk television. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:49, 28 March 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 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television seems to be more likely to be useful for collaboration. The other ones listed here.. not so much, but I don't have a strong opinion on them. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in film

Category:Wikipedians interested in film - depopulate of all but subcats (making this a parent cat) per previous precedent of "interested in books". Similar to television, below, this is simply too vague in naming to be useful for anything but a parent cat. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate - as nominator. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I disagree, and there really wasn't any precedent formed from the books discussion. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate per nom. - But with reservations about "depopulate" noms from now on if we are not able to enforce them. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would force the creation of possibly hundreds of sub-categories. - LA @ 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all categories of those interested in a particular (individual) film have been deleted. Only those interested in film series remain. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of film series. - LA @ 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate, doesn't serve any purpose as it is. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a category for Wikipedians interested in the subject of film or for those interested in one or more specific films? Or, is it just a grouping of people who like to watch films? If it is the first, it should be kept. If it is the second or third, it should be depopulated. Given the ongoing discussion concerning the depopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in history (see here), I'm starting to think that we shouldn't depopulate categories unless they are explicitly parent categories (that is, they contain some form of "Wikipedians by" in their title). I would not be opposed to a proposal to rename (i.e. repurpose) and depopulate this category, but I'm reluctant to support depopulation under the current name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a problem in naming (which several of these have). Consider the "books as objects" result. I would strongly support a speedy rename of adding an "s" to "film". That simple change should deal with your concern. - jc37 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's an issue with multiple categories (including, in addition to this one, "interested in television", "interested in books", "interested in history"), but I'm not sure the addition of an "s" to "film" will be enough, especially since it would still leave open the possibility of repopulation of the category. Is there any way that this could be converted into a "Wikipedians by" parent category? (Incidentally, the "books as objects" category is still a single-user category, and the creator did note that he supported deletion if membership didn't increase within a month of creation...) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So something like "Wikipedians by interest in films"? (I still think the "s" is important since it helps distinguish between films as finished products; and film as an art; or as a profession; or, for that matter, as an object.) - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given its lack of specificity, would a category for interest in films (as opposed to the art of film) be useful? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a parent cat to subcats dealing with specific films (and possibly a parent of parent cats - the parent: films by director, for example). Does that clarify better? - jc37 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created Category:Wikipedians by interest in films to show what I mean (It can obviously be reverted as a result of this discussion.) - jc37 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now what you meant. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with BF: if the category as is does not just mean "likes to watch movies" but is rather an expression of "the art of film," then it's fine as is. Its subcats do not entirely prove this point, though. —Scouter Sig 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they don't. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the subcategories have been relocated, delete (i.e. depopulate) this ambiguously-named category, without prejudice to creating Category:Wikipedians interested in cinema for those who are interested in (to quote ScouterSig) "the art of film". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Then, to clarify) - Support BF's statement directly above. - jc37 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(to BF) That's just splitting hairs. Not that I'm opposed to the idea. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 1 April 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 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use an AMD Dual Core processor

Per tons of precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by computer hardware, probably speedyable as similar enough to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use computers with AMD processors. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorisation on this basis does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. It's probably speedy-able as a more specialised recreation of the "AMD processors" category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series (subcategories only)

We don't need a category for every spin-off of this series. Far too narrow for collaboration to get this specific. These should all be upmerged to the parent category (or preferably, deleted as "liking" a show does not help the encyclopedia). VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series or delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - including the parent (as a "who like" cat doesn't clearly enough indicate collaborative interest). Each one seems to be (or at least nearly is) a "single article" category. No prejudice against the creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in the Idol series per Idol series. - jc37 09:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom and jc37. Also, the mere act of watching a reality show, which is the sentiment expressed by the userbox, does not imply liking it, and watching or liking a reality show does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Black Falcon, esp. "does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest." Master Redyva ♠
Delete all and why can't we get rid of the parent cat too? —Scouter Sig 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decatur 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: speedy delete as recreation (only member already in target category)- Just found this, ironically resulting in rename to my proposed upmerge target. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category description reads as "This category lists Wikipedia users who currently live in or have previously lived in Decatur, Alabama or the Decatur Metropolitan Area located in Alabama, United States; that includes the counties of Morgan, and Lawrence.", however the userbox says "This user lives in or hails from Decatur, Alabama." Decatur, Alabama has a population of about 56,000, so it is borderline for a category in that respect, but the fact the category has only a single user is also something that should be considered. My first choice would be to upmerge this to Category:Wikipedians in the Huntsville-Decatur Area, Alabama (which perhaps could use a rename of its own in the future). My second choice would be delete as single user category (and possibly as too small of a location to support a category), and my third choice would be to rename the category to Category:Wikipedians in Decatur, Alabama. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Bolinas

Bolinas, California has a population of a mere 1,200. Far too small to support collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in the San Francisco Bay Area (which could perhaps use a rename itself in the future) as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Vega. —Scouter Sig 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

Category:Wikipedians in Austin

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Austin, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 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 play the mandolin

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:Wikipedian mandolinists, which is the proper naming convention of such categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Honestly, I think this should probably be a reverse merge. Even the populating userbox uses "plays the Mandolin".~~ - jc37 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article contains numerous uses of both "mandolinist" and "mandolin player". Also, I just noticed Category:Mandolinists... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough : ) - jc37 19:30, 29 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 in Raleigh

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) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh to Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh, North Carolina - for clarity. - jc37 15:49, 28 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 a global account

Category:Wikipedians with a global account - As this is currently only available to administrators, this would seem to be potentially duplicative of Category:Administrators. Another case of where the userbox(es), or other userpage notcies, should be fine, but the category, not so much. - jc37 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not just for that reason, but because the category has no benefit. The global account is purely a technical issue, and doesn't reflect a person's views, positions, powers, or anything of the sort. Knowing that user X has a global account tells me absolutely nothing about user X. Even when other users have access to this category, it'll still be pointless. Ral315 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an issue. By placing oneself in this category, I don't see why that equates to a "position of power", "status seeking" or anything of the sort. Rather, it's a purely informative resource of information. I don't think your point is applicable. Anthøny 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was Ral's point that this category equates to a position of power or status-seeking. On the contrary, he states thta it "doesn't reflect ..." any of those. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The full list is availabe here, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VegaDark (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a few user categories are frivolous, but this one isn't. As per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Single User Login and other discussions, this feature has great significance for the project. Users who are participating in the beta stage can easily locate one another via this category, and others who are interested in how it is proceeding can easily locate them. — Athaenara ✉ 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ral. While the category potentially wouldn't duplicate CAT:ADMINS (administrators from other projects who are not administrators here could be included), and the feature does have great significance for the project, I don't know why one user with a global account would need to find another via this category, and anyone interested in how it's going can check the reports on Bugzilla. WODUP 07:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Athaenara. Seems to me this would have great use for people either trying to learn more about global accounts. This could additionally be used by users who are looking for others that have accounts on other wikis they are active on. GlassCobra 07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring to Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Athaenara and GlassCobra. Master Redyva ♠ 18:34, March 29, 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Ral and WODUP. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is probably the best place to ask for information about the feature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting this up is not trivial, and those who have them or those who want to may well want to contact each other. Certainly project related. DGG (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments above, and as a counter to what I view as essentially non-arguments. Anthøny 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not all users who have a global account are administrators on English Wikipedia. miranda 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but this category contains only users with an account on en.wikipedia (and, currently, it contains only admins). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ral315, WODUP, and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found myself in this category one day because someone added it to the template I had just added to my userpage. I had to subst the template so I could remove myself from the category, as it is useless. Just because someone is in this category does not mean they are able to or want to help you with global accounts. If you want help with global accounts, go to m:Help:Unified login. --Kbdank71 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves /no/ purpose at all. While I disagree it's inherently a copy of Category:Administrators (as not all in that category have a global account yet), I do think it's relatively useless. Essentially, this is a category saying "this user has the same username elsewhere," which is not a category we'd probably allow (how does it help the encyclopedia?). The users in this category most do not inherently know how to help users with SUL transition (for many people, it's a matter of pressing "submit" on Special:MergeAccount), so I don't believe that is a good reason to keep it either. 65.97.18.143 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is mine, I forgot to sign in. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone wants to do research about users with global accounts, finding out who has the userbox on their page would be just as effective, and would take only a few more clicks.

Wikipedians who play board games

Category:Wikipedians who play board games - tagged this merely as nearly the entire tree has been nominated. (And noting I merged Vega Dark's several noms to this one. Feel free to "un-merge" the nomination if wanted.) - jc37 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally didn't include this because of the "interested in" category, but I suppose that can be moved to Wikipedians by interest. VegaDark (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge any surviving "interest" subcategories to Category:Wikipedians interested in games. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play backgammon

Category:Wikipedians who play go

Category:Wikipedians who play mahjong

Category:Wikipedians who play tafl games

Not helpful to the encyclopedia to know who "plays" a particular board game. Neutral on creation of an "interested in" categories except for the backgammon category, which looks too narrow. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per my several comments at this discussion. - jc37 09:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and jc37 except Category:Wikipedians who play tafl games, which is a category for a family of games. Rename that category to Category:Wikipedians interested in tafl games (a check of the contributions history of the sole users in the category shows that s/he actively edits articles related to the subject). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play chess

Category:Wikipedians who play chess - Same rationale as the group nom above. No prejudice against creation of a "by interest" version, though such a cat may not be appropriate for inclusion in some "who play" userboxes. - jc37 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without prejudice to creating an "interest" category. I enjoy playing chess, but have no interest in the topic of chess. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally didn't include this because I thought this would have more opposition to deleting it than the others, but I still support its deletion. VegaDark (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who collect model cars

Somewhat obscure "collect" category, see this and this for similar past precedent. Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize who "collects" anything IMO. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I agree that is not helpful to categorise users based on what they collect; on the other, I wonder whether this category is not in some way reflective of an interest in the subject of model cars (and, by extension, of a willingness or desire to collaborate on articles about such cars). Since I'm unsure about the strength of this relationship (or, for that matter, whether it exists at all), I am neutral for now. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Twinkle

With the advent of the new "gadgets" tab in "My preferences", using Twinkle is as simple as checking a checkbox in preferences, so I would argue that whatever use this category might have had before that was added is no longer applicable. No real use to search for other users with Twinkle since it is so easy for a user to add now, it is potentially all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obsodelete. Dorftrottel (complain) 09:40, March 31, 2008
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Those who just check the checkbox aren't making personal settings, they're only using defaults. With this line of thinking, the category is more likely to include editors using more details, possibly advanced options, or at least have a better than average understanding of Twinkle. This is about as "all inclusive" as the category for Internet Explorer (last I checked it was still most common browser in use). -- Ned Scott 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage, Alaska for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 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 in Ann Arbor

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Ann Arbor, Michigan for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 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 in Atlanta

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Atlanta, Georgia for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 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:Brunei work group members

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: rename to Category:WikiProject Brunei members. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs indication this is a user category. Apparently a former section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, it now has its own Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Brunei, so should probaby be renamed to Category:WikiProject Brunei members or Category:WikiProject Brunei participants, depending on which name the users in the project prefer. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either per nom, with a slight preference for "members" to match the text of Template:User WikiProject Brunei and the previous category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either as nom. The new admin that renamed the work group to a wikiproject probably forgot to rename this as well. --Novelty (talk) 16:11, 26 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:New users to WP:NOVELS

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: Merge to Category:WikiProject Novels participants. (List already exists; issues with naming conventions; and concerns with the subjectivity of "new".) - jc37 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to categorize only the new users, Category:WikiProject Novels participants already exists. Also, no indication it is a user category. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, presuming the members are already in the second category. Merge if not. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of new users to the project is already available here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the WikiProject wants to have a category like this, I see no reason to delete it. It could actually be very useful for a number of reasons. When I used to give new participant notices for WP:DIGI I would have to rely on memory and individual page histories to see if I had already given a notice or not, and that's a much smaller group than WP:NOVELS. The only problem I can see is maintenance of it, but that could be something as easy as a time-trigger in a userbox. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I may be somewhat bias in favour of keeping the page because I created it, I should point out that I created it for a reason, so that members of the project could visit the users' talk pages and elp them adjust. WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. When does "new" end? —Scouter Sig 15:08, 28 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 Underground Miner

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 - single user cat (and concerns about the current name). No prejudice against (re-)creation (though renamed, as appropriate) should there be more interest. - jc37 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to fix capitalization and plurality per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by profession. Additionally, although I am no expert, I would consider "underground mining" similar enough to mining in general to just rename this to Category:Wikipedian miners. Also, I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion as a single-user category. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian miners (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedian underground miners (2nd choice) or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian underground miners, sounds better anyway, and hey, its not my fault that I'm all alone out there!EA210269 (talk) 21:48, 25 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 from Santa Catarina

Santa Catarina currently goes to a disambig page. The parent category makes it clear the one intended is Brazil, but that still leaves two possibilities for the location, Santa Catarina (state) and Santa Catarina (island). Since the island is in the state, I think this is best renamed to Category:Wikipedians from Santa Catarina (state). VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Santa Catarina (state) for clarification as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or rename per nom (2nd choice). This is a "by origin" category, indicating where a user was born; such categories function primarily as identification categories and do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. We can choose our interests, but we can't choose where we're born. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre

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 - I'm closing this early as the only (two?) opposer(s) agree with the new category name. No prejudice against nomination of the new category (which has apparently already been created). - jc37 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre - Template:Lc1

The cat was created in response to a discussion at Talk:Iron Maiden#New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and it serves no purpose other than to make a point. Funeral 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Do Not Delete The cat has three seperate users who honestly believe NWOBHM is an era and a music genre. The reason to delete the page is frivolous. The cat is no different than most other cat's pairing mutliple users together. Master Redyva 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Black Falcon's motion to keep & rename. Master Redyva (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. It is a typical example of a "Wikipedians by miscellaneous sentiment"-type category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this should be renamed, perhaps to Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal or similar (to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by music genre). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I believe this could be a strong category. It appears this is an ongoing issue of debate and could act as a catalsyt for research and debate on the subject. I also believe it is a stronger catergory than Wikipedians who read Oscar Wilde, Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, Wikipedians who listen to world music. I also believe in "Wikilove," is that wrong? Please do not delete. 66.162.207.31 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Falcon is not only an active editor, but is also very bright. I concure with the rename: "Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal" 66.162.207.31 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename I think it should be deleted. If not, renamed per BF. нмŵוτн τ 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but allow creation of Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal if it is in fact determined by consensus to constitute a music genre. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be renamed or the creation should be allowed even if by consensus it is not considered to be a music genre because I do listen the the NWOBHM bands (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc...). Even if it is not a genre, the bands still belong to the era (or wave of music from the time period). Master Redyva (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely pointless category with no purpose beyond self-identification, which UCFD consensus has determined to be moot.--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete A category created just to try and prove a point in a content argument. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both pointy and not useful. I believe a great many things, none of which are appropriate for user categories. I am not opposed to the creation of an appropriately named category, as proposed by Black Falcon, but I'd rather see a new category rather than a rename, as the parameters of this category do not precisely match the parameters of the proposed cat. Horologium (talk) 02:42, 28 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 24

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Die Hard series

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Die Hard series - As I look over the members of the category, I see:

Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond - A lengthy series with quite a few related articles. See also: Category:James Bond.
Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series - Though only 3 films, it's spanned several media types. See also: Category:Matrix series.
Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python - Talk about spanning the media. See also: Category:Monty Python
Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars - And unless you've lived under a rock or in a cave, this should be self-explanatory. See also: Category:Star Wars.

The best that this cat has for comparison is: Category:Die Hard films. (See also: Die Hard series.) There really is no comparison.

I'm nominating this for procedural reasons as well. Noting that there are (as one Wikipedian put it) innumerable "series" out there. There should be more than the series of interlinked films to justify the "need" for a Wikipedian category. - jc37 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Die Hard films is now up for CFD. —Scouter Sig 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - partly per nom and partly due to the text of User:Sasoriza/Die Hard user (all members of the category transclude the userbox). The userbox does not express an interest in the subject of the Die Hard series so much as it expresses a liking for the films or a liking for one or more of the phrases contained (e.g. "live free and die hard", "Yipikayay, motherfucker"). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but without prejudice to recreation of a similar category geared towards collaboration on the franchise as a whole (Category:Wikipedians interested in Die Hard?). I don't particularly like "series" since I feel that refers exclusively toward the movies rather than including video games or other such articles that users might be enticed to collaborate on relating to Die Hard. Template:Die Hard lists 12 articles that I believe users could collaborate on, which is probably enough to support a category, but per my naming concerns and per BF pointing out that all users in the category simply have that userbox, I think it is best this is deleted rather than renamed. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or rename per VegaDark's wonderful explanation. нмŵוτн τ 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal

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 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: As described at Portal talk:Energy#Show your support, the userboxes that populate this category are for users who "support" (in the emotional sense, not the physical sense) the Energy Portal. Thus, this category is essentially a variation on the various "friends of" user categories that have been deleted in the past (see, for example, this discussion). Such categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration and are essentially unrelated to editing. There is a separate category for users who actually maintain the portal: Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Energy Portal.

(The text of the previous nomination of this category (and affiliated discussion), which resulted in a "no consensus" outcome, is located here.)

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The second category is more than sufficient and better named, we don't need 2 categories for this portal. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though the phrase and userbox are both a cute way to promote thier portal. —Scouter Sig 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concure with Scoutersig wholeheartedly. Cute indeed. Master Redyva ♠ 18:30, 25 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 23

Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language (parent category only)

Propose renaming Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language to ...

The March 15 discussion for this category tree resulted in the renaming of all subcategories to the Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the [Language] Wikipedia format; however, the title of the parent category was not really addressed. This nomination is intended to prompt discussion regarding the appropriate name for the parent category. Options include (please propose others if you can think of any):

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Wikipedians by contribution to other language Wikipedias? VegaDark (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I closed the previous discussion, I considered Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. But I wasn't sure of the possible "tone" of using "other language". Other than what? English? Alternate language? Sister projects? I guess we're looking for synonyms here : ) - I also note that we tend to try to use "by" to notate in the name that the category is a parent cat. Can anyone find somewhere as to how WikiMedia refers to such Wikipedias? - jc37 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - So any further thoughts? There are at least 4 choices above. (And more that I suppose we could come up with.) Which do we all prefer/agree on? - jc37 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to follow the "Wikipedians by" convention (which would clearly identify this as being a parent category only), but "Wikipedians by contribution" focuses the category title on the nature of the contributions, implying that users are subcategorised based on the type of contributions that they make (e.g. image uploads, article writing, maintenance, etc.). Of the four options above, my current preference is for some form of "Wikipedians who contribute", to match the subcategories ... probably Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia

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: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Chronicles of Narnia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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]
Rename As The Chronicles of Narnia has crossed media, I would say rename it to Category:Wikipedians who like The Chronicles of Narnia since they can be read or watched. Keep the words "who like" instead of "interested in" to keep the category name length down. - LA @ 20:40, 15 March 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 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~Category:Wikipedians who like The Chronicles of Narnia~~ Category:Wikipedians interested in The Chronicles of Narnia as it is a multi-media interest whose name is not simply "Narnia." —Scouter Sig 14:13, 25 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 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]
Oppose As Harry Potter has crossed media, keep the words "who like" instead of "interested in" to keep the category name length down. - LA @ 20:42, 15 March 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 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series or Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter franchise as it is a multi-media interest; simply saying "interested in Harry Potter" sounds like they have a crush on HP himself. —Scouter Sig 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is a broader discussion "somehwhere" about changing the naming convention of "series" to "franchise", I suggest that we stick to using "series", for now. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series - jc37 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main article about the series is located at Harry Potter and the article about the character at Harry Potter (character). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After some research, I've listed both at WP:RM. See also: talk:Harry Potter#Requested move. - jc37 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in a region

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 (after over a month) - There was a lot of good discussion, but relisting "again" is probably not a good idea (as possibly confusing, for one thing). No prejudice against a new nomination (which should probably consider the suggestions/ideas below). - jc37 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you clarify, please? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to avoid the recurring drama of nationalistic self-identification. As I go through the various countries, there are real life controversies in naming, and questions whether a country is actually two (or more) countries, or a single country. This can possibly get more complicated when dealing with things such as the European Union. I think we're better off staying out of the debate, and if merely making a singular word plural can do so, I'm all for it : ) - jc37 18:07, 14 March 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 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Apparently more discussion is needed. - jc37 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really other than "Interested in Africa" this is a list of countries. But what if someone is interested in Africa or "the Carribean" or the "Middle East?" A rename to "interest by country" would be exclusive of those wikipedians. —Scouter Sig 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been considering nominating the Africa one for deletion as "too broad". But even if kept, then there's always BF's Feb 18 suggestion, above. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as same nameI think that regions are as important as individual countries to study (speaking as a geography student). I think that the category is fine as it is, though needing some structure. Say, "Region > ___ region/continent > country" ? —Scouter Sig 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, which is something we were discussiing further up this discussion (goegraphy, country, etc.) May I ask that you re-read this whole discussion, and comment on the several ideas for a ReOrg? (I'm noting that there now seems to be a consensus for "some kind" of ReOrg, we just seem to be working out the details.) - jc37 15:34, 28 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 by skill

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 close (noting the discussion below) - Feel free to nominate for individual discussion. - jc37 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to discussions below, categories like Wikipedian violinists shouldn't exist, because the it doesn't help wikipedia. According to that, the following categories and supercategories of Wikipedian Violinists should be deleted:

I don't necessarily agree, but if such categories "don't help wikipedia", then why do they exist? Trying to eliminate any double standards... Timneu22 (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This is effectively a procedural mass nomination of multiple category trees that fails to consider the individual utility (or uselessness) of each group of subcategories. Moreover, only the parent category is tagged, so a "delete" outcome - if achieved - could not be implemented. With regard to Category:Wikipedian violinists, one potential use is that a violinist could upload a GFDL-licensed sample of violin music. If that's not a convincing argument for encyclopedic usefulness, I would not object to a nomination of that category. However, a nomination as broad and indiscriminate as this one cannot hope to produce any type of meaningful change. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I nominate each category separately? I think there is a definite inconsistency in WP when it comes to these categories. Timneu22 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think separate nominations of each category grouping would be more conducive to clear discussion, with two caveats. First, you might want to delay a nomination of Category:Wikipedians by media interest, as a number of its subcategories are currently under discussion. Second, it might be prudent to not nominate all of the categories at once, but rather to nominate one or two, wait to see how the discussions are closed, and proceed from there. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 21 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.

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 *'''Delete''', serves /no/ purpose at all. While I disagree it's inherently a copy of [[:Category:Administrators]] (as not all in that category have a global account yet), I do think it's relatively useless. Essentially, this is a category saying "this user has the same username elsewhere," which is not a category we'd probably allow (how does it help the encyclopedia?). The users in this category most do not inherently know how to help users with SUL transition (for many people, it's a matter of pressing "submit" on Special:MergeAccount), so I don't believe that is a good reason to keep it either. [[Special:Contributions/65.97.18.143|65.97.18.143]] ([[User talk:65.97.18.143|talk]])  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ::Above comment is mine, I forgot to sign in. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>[[User:^demon|<b style="color:#000">demon</b>]][[User_talk:^demon|<sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz]</sup>]]&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</em>
+*'''Delete'''. If someone wants to do research about users with global accounts, finding out who has the userbox on their page would be just as effective, and would take only a few more clicks.
 ==== Wikipedians who play board games ====