Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions
Scoutersig (talk | contribs) |
Scoutersig (talk | contribs) |
||
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--> |
*'''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>]] <em style="font-size:10px;">10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</em> |
::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>]] <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 ==== |
==== Wikipedians who play board games ==== |
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. |
Speedy nominations
New nominations by 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)
- UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series (presuming the result of the discussion below). - jc37 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep "Talk television" category as being fairly broad. Other than that, I agree with BF. —ScouterSig 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- (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)
- 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. —ScouterSig 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree. Though note that the "talk radio" categories have all been recently deleted. - jc37 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. —ScouterSig 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Depopulate - as nominator. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose It would force the creation of possibly hundreds of sub-categories. - LA @ 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- There are hundreds of film series. - LA @ 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Depopulate, doesn't serve any purpose as it is. Snowolf How can I help? 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ah, I see now what you meant. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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. —ScouterSig 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, they don't. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- (Then, to clarify) - Support BF's statement directly above. - jc37 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- (to BF) That's just splitting hairs. Not that I'm opposed to the idea. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Category:Wikipedians who use an AMD Dual Core processor
- Category:Wikipedians who use an AMD Dual Core processor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series (subcategories only)
- Category:Wikipedians who like American Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Australian Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Canadian Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Indian Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Latin American Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Malaysian Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like New Zealand Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Philippine Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Pinoy Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Pop Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who like Singapore Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series or delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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? —ScouterSig 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Category:Decatur Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 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.
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)
- 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)
- Upmerge per Vega. —ScouterSig 02:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
March 28
Category:Wikipedians in Austin
Category:Wikipedians who play the mandolin
Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh
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)
- Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete per nom. The full list is availabe here, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VegaDark (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You may be referring to Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep, per my comments above, and as a counter to what I view as essentially non-arguments. Anthøny 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - not all users who have a global account are administrators on English Wikipedia. miranda 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete as per Ral315, WODUP, and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Above comment is mine, I forgot to sign in. ^demon[omg plz] 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete and upmerge any surviving "interest" subcategories to Category:Wikipedians interested in games. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who play backgammon
Category:Wikipedians who play go
Category:Wikipedians who play mahjong
Category:Wikipedians who play tafl games
- Category:Wikipedians who play backgammon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who play go (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who play mahjong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Wikipedians who play tafl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - per my several comments at this discussion. - jc37 09:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Delete - as nominator. - jc37 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Obsodelete. Dorftrottel (complain) 09:40, March 31, 2008
- Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
March 25
Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage
Category:Wikipedians in Ann Arbor
Category:Wikipedians in Atlanta
Category:Brunei work group members
Category:New users to WP:NOVELS
Category:Wikipedian Underground Miner
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)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Santa Catarina (state) for clarification as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre
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)
- "Category:Die Hard films is now up for CFD. —ScouterSig 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Weak delete or rename per VegaDark's wonderful explanation. нмŵוτнτ 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal
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)
- Comment - Category:Wikipedians by contribution to other language Wikipedias? VegaDark (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
March 21
Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia
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)
- Rename as nominator. - jc37 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- I currently don't oppose that. - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. —ScouterSig 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series - jc37 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- After some research, I've listed both at WP:RM. See also: talk:Harry Potter#Requested move. - jc37 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)