Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
whoops forgot to sign
Line 115: Line 115:
*'''Delete.''' No anti-categories.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' No anti-categories.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - While I am leaning towards deletion for other reasons, I wonder how different this is than any category which describes something that a Wikipedian did or experienced in the past. Especially the previous location categories. If this is deleted, we should probably revisit that discussion. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - While I am leaning towards deletion for other reasons, I wonder how different this is than any category which describes something that a Wikipedian did or experienced in the past. Especially the previous location categories. If this is deleted, we should probably revisit that discussion. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - No need to delete, once its change to a "Pro" category.


====[[:Category:Wikipedians who hate MLA format]]====
====[[:Category:Wikipedians who hate MLA format]]====

Revision as of 06:21, 20 May 2007

Template:Cfdu-header

Closing

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

Speedy nominations

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Zoo Tycoon

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Zoo Tycoon to Category:Wikipedians who play Zoo Tycoon. --Mike Selinker 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swimmer wikipedians

Speedy Rename Category:Swimmer wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian swimmers - caps and reverse order. - jc37 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synchronized swimmer wikipedians

Speedy Rename Category:Synchronized swimmer wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian synchronized swimmers - caps and reverse order. - jc37 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water polo player wikipedians

Speedy Rename Category:Water polo player wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who play water polo - caps and re-arrange order. - jc37 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diver wikipedians

Speedy Rename Category:Diver wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian divers - caps and reverse order. - jc37 08:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Audio file editors

Speedy Rename Category:Audio file editors to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files - added Wikipedians and re-arrange order. - jc37 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New nominations by date

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

May 19

Category:User accounts for vandalism

Can't possibly categorize all past accounts that have been used for vandalism. Attempting to maintain such a category would be futile. This is nonsense. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. --Blake3522 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossibly large scope, and doesn't sound right besides — we don't want there to be accounts for vandalism. Serpent's Choice 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Blake3522 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that are in Spy Force One

User category that added people to a now deleted group. Not useful to Wikipedia at all. Once again, I'll say that stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Windows under duress

Does not help Wikipedia in any way I can think of. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category fits me to a glove, but it doesn't do wikipedia any good. --Bduke 08:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who were in the Jeopardy! studio audience

Do we want a category like this for every game show or talk show ever made? I don't see this being any more useful than its parent category, Category:Wikipedians who like Jeopardy!. I suppose it's possible such people saw some behind-the-scenes stuff, but adding any info they got from first-hand experience to articles would qualify as original research. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians using Google Talk

Redundant to the correctly-named Category:Wikipedians who use Google Talk. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge/speedy upmerge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge. –Pomte 08:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213

We don't need one of these for all 10,000 bug reports on BugZilla. Will become obsolete once it is fixed, anyway, and this category won't provide any benefit until then. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the acknowleged impetus for this category, I'll be sorry to see it go. This isn't just any ol' bug, but probably one of the biggest current sources of frustration for those of us that spend significant time battling Wikipedia vandalism. This little bit of wiki-civil disobedience was meant to simply inform other users about this issue (I bet 98% of regular editors still don't know about this bug) and encourage our noble developers on their pathway towards a solution. At least it managed to pick up a little bit of attention.[1] In any case, I'm sure this cat will be deleted, and for perfectly valid reasons...but I won't pretend to like it! Sigh. — Scientizzle 08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until bug is fixed. Scientizzle is right that this isn't "any ol' bug". Because of this bug, warning IP users for vandalism serves virtually no purpose since most IP users are not getting the messages. The problem is that most users on Wikipedia still don't know that this bug is preventing them from being able to communicate with IPs. This category was created to try to "get the word out" that there is a problem with this and that most IPs are not receiving messages they sent. I understand if the category is deleted but that doesn't mean that I will try other ways to inform people. -- Hdt83 Chat 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fully aware of the bug and its effects. I don't see how increasing people's awareness of it any more will make the bug get fixed any faster. Every single Wikipedian could be in this category and I doubt it would make a difference, I'm sure the developers are working on it and the amount of people in this category isn't going to affect their speed. I also don't like the precedent this sets- Allowing a category like this for all bug reports on BugZilla (or at least all unsolved ones). Yes, this is more severe than most, but setting the threshhold for what is category-worthy or not is subjective. I also really don't like the temporary nature of this. I don't like the idea of any Wikipedian category that is expected to be obsolete within a few weeks or a couple months at most. VegaDark (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IAR. The bug report links to this user category to express the users' attitude. It'd look ridiculous when they come here to see it deleted. –Pomte 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, nobody looking at the bug report will work any faster because they see this category nor will they find it ridiculous if the category is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonatan (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - ridiculous category, serves no purpose and doesn't help anybody. Yonatan talk 14:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with over 5000 edits and Category:Wikipedians with over 5,000 edits

In this case, the former was a subcat of the latter. As these are redundant, they should be merged one into the other.

May 18

Category:Userbox Creators

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy delete, redundant. Picaroon (Talk) 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with the properly named Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Spec-Chums

"This category describes those who consider themselves to be fans of the Sinclair ZX Spectrum computer" - Wha? This is nonsense. No indication it is even a user category, so at minimum needs a rename, but even then this would have no benefit to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a nonsense category, its not helping the encyclopedia in any way. — The Sunshine Man 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

Category:Wikipedian elementary school students

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson as it became empty. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Wikipedians born before 1992 were deleted at CfD. High school year categories were recently merged here. The children's privacy issue had no consensus. –Pomte 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There was also another, later CfD that resulted in no consensus, and then an IAR deletion endorsed in DRV. Since it's not clear which precedent should apply, please don't appeal to other discussions. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to appeal to other discussions, specifically the no consensus one. I'd like to say that we should go two months before we reconsider the issue, in nominations like this.--Mike Selinker 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "No consensus" means what it says: that the discussion did not result in a consensus of Wikipedians. And as such, typically means that a re-nomination is fine (presuming that it's not done disruptively). AFAIK, all discussions regarding this topic so far either resulted in Deletion or No consensus. I also note that there was also an arbcom case about such things. See especially: current practice and counseling (and really that whole page). - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though I think it's fine to have the middle and high school categories, even Wikipedia has its limits.--WaltCip 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What's next, Wikipedian preschoolers? VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 16

Category:Wikipedians who no longer use Mac OS X

"Not" category, does not help to categorize things we "no longer" do, and does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name Change then. "Wikipedians who are in support of Switching from OSX" or "Wikipedians who are in support of Switching to Windows."--Zeeboid 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no potential to improve collaboration. Bfp (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No anti-categories.--Mike Selinker 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I am leaning towards deletion for other reasons, I wonder how different this is than any category which describes something that a Wikipedian did or experienced in the past. Especially the previous location categories. If this is deleted, we should probably revisit that discussion. - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No need to delete, once its change to a "Pro" category.

Category:Wikipedians who hate MLA format

"Not" category, does not help to categorize things we hate, and all "hate" categories have been deleted previously (or speedy deleted). VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate mashed potatoes. How would I collaborate on something that I hate?--WaltCip 13:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we change it to something like "Users who believe MLA format is inefficient" or "Users who prefer other bibliography formats over MLA format"? We can rename the category such that it clarifies that the members prefer other styles, or at least bibliography formats, over MLA. (I think the MLA paper format is ugly, but I absolutely hate the bibliography format because so many simpler ones exist.) Thomas Levine 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Collaborate by what you appreciate, not what you don't.--Mike Selinker 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If renamed, this becomes a classic example of a "not" category: Wikipedians who do not like... - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

Football fans

and on a similar note:

More football fans. I’m certain about all of them except the Egypt one. I can’t tell if the Pharaohs alluded to in the userbox is the national team, or what.--Mike Selinker 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Egypt national football team says Pharaohs is a nickname. Is it good form for some articles to say FC and others to say F.C.? –Pomte 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're stuck with that, as the mainspace articles have this difference as well. I amended the Egypt one, and added an AFL one.--Mike Selinker 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hrm. In that case a discussion needs to take place about making the articles uniform. Until then, I suppose we can settle for having the categories as you propose, but eventually the categories need to become uniform as well. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It becomes a problem of fact, not of categorization. Some countries use the periods and some don't. We shouldn't attempt to standardize them in that case.--Mike Selinker 07:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nominated except the Egypt one (category name should match article name). Also there needs to be a standard F.C./FC as Pomte points out. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, i realised the mistake i made as soon as i created the South Melbourne category, coulnd't be bothered/didn't know how to change it, figured someone would get round to it eventually lol. Blackmissionary 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I vaguely recall one of MS's past group nominations at WP:CFD where there was a discussion and link confirming either F.C. or FC, but I don't recall much else. If someone can find the link, or even just more more information, that would be welcome : ) - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian musicians

Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument

Merge Category:Wikipedian musicians to Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument subcategories/depopulate. - With the exception of the composers subcat, these are effectively the same category. - jc37 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete this, since there is no way to merge this without asking every person what instrument they play. Merging then depopulating would be a nonsensical extra step. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The scope laid out at the top of the category is too broad to be useful. –Pomte 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food

Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food - Per the UCFD discussion below, renominating this for deletion. - jc37 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Millions of people "like" spicy food, a category is not helpful as just because someone likes a food does not mean they would be more capable or likely to collaborate on articles relating to that food. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservapedian

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy rename. Picaroon (Talk) 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Conservapedian to Category:Wikipedians who use Conservapedia - added Wikipedians. - jc37 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedists interested in researching history

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy rename. Picaroon (Talk) 02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedists interested in researching history to Category:Wikipedians interested in researching history - ists to ians. - jc37 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 14

Category:Wikipedians interested in general knowledge

Category:Wikipedians interested in general knowledge - Potentially all-inclusive category. - jc37 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facilitates collaboration on articles such as stuff and things! ...but we should delete it anyway. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most readers are general knowledgians; many Wikipedians may not be general knowledgians because they might have signed up to only edit a certain type of article. Still, I don't understand why people are using this generic category to represent themselves, as it's like being in the empty Category:Wikipedians by interest. –Pomte 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Wikipedians by video game console

  • Rename all - as nominator. Standardising names. - jc37 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Wikipedians interested in x games to convey a more collaborative intention. Rename as nominated if no consensus for this, except add "Microsoft" in the last one, as you kept the developer in each of the previous ones. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, except get rid of the manufacturers' names (Sega, Sony, and do not add "Microsoft"), except maybe in the case of Sega Mega Drive since "Genesis" needs disambiguation. Category names can be shortened if the meaning is clear, so the bottom of userpages are not cluttered with unnecessary text. The verb "play" does not express a support/favor like "like", so it's non-divisive. The userboxes, on the other hand, say "prefers over" and so are divisive by nature. –Pomte 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Sega and Nintendo and Xbox as nominated, do not rename PlayStation 2 and 3, rename PlayStation to PlayStation games (no Sony). I definitely refer to a Dreamcast as a Sega Dreamcast, but never do I refer to my PlayStations as Sony PlayStations, nor an Xbox as a Microsoft Xbox.--Mike Selinker 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first PlayStation was often referred to as the Sony PlayStation. (Possibly due to legal issues, and the commercials thus creating a meme of sorts.) I've never seen the Xbox called the Microsoft Xbox anywhere. It's usually just a note "in addition". I alpha-sorted the Sega names (Genesis first), which allows us to drop the second Sega reference in the category name. However, considering that the article names it the Sega Mega Drive, perhaps we should just create Category:Sega Genesis as a cat redirect, and shorten the name even further. - jc37 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose that's true, but I would be surprised if anyone who owns a PlayStation calls it that. The Sega Genesis is a continental issue: No one in Europe knows it as a Genesis, and no one in America knows it as a Mega Drive. I certainly don't think the clunky category title hurts here, given that.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play massively multiplayer online games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians by video game - jc37 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play massively multiplayer online games to Category:Wikipedians by massively multiplayer online game, and depopulate (currently 2 members). As an alternative, UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians by video game. - jc37 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and depopulate - as nominator. - jc37 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- the new name will make it more clear that it's meant as a category of categories. I'm not sure, though, what we should do if there are people who want to be in the main level of this category because they play multiple MMOs... other than ask them what other dimension they live in where there's time for more than one. Pinball22 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and depopulate. If they play more than one, they can go in to the subcategory for each game they play. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikipedians by video game, and depopulate. I don't think it's necessary to have the umbrella here.--Mike Selinker 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now that I think about it, this would be a better idea. No need to differentiate between an MMORPG and any other computer game. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play Minesweeper

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was No consensus - jc37 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Minesweeper - Since this has been included with every windows operating system, it duplicates Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. - jc37 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subcategorize - No, it's a subcategory. A Wikipedian may use Windows but not play Minesweeper.--WaltCip 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't agree that everyone who has used Windows has played this game, but it is still close to all-inclusive, and having a category would only support collaboration on a single article, which is not useful. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue shouldn't be about overlap with another category, because this one has a completely different sense than Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. This is an insult to the game, which predates Windows. While it may be true that most Windows users have played the game, those who have only played it a handful of times without analyzing the strategy are probably not adding themselves to this category, unless they're poseurs, in which case we can't stop them because there's no proof about the matter and it's not important anyway. The reason that this category should be deleted is it's too specific in scope in relation to the number of Wikipedia articles on the subject. –Pomte 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Owning is not the same as playing, and thus it isn't any different than any other video game category.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play Terraworld

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Terraworld - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terraworld Online, the associated category should go too. - jc37 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This should be a speedy criteria. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, it should. –Pomte 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User qya-5

Category:User sjn-5

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Keep - jc37 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as speaking Quenya or Sindarin at a professional level. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem useful. Jon Harald Søby 12:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The professors et al who worked on the LOTR film rather obviously speak the elvish languages at a professional level. And there are professors at universities in the UK, The US, Europe, and elsewhere who do as well. - jc37 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reliable sources on the article indicating this. Just because someone had people say things in elvish in the movie does not mean they were fluent in it. They probably just looked up how to say the particular lines that were needed, I doubt someone went to the effort to learn an entire fictional lanugage for the few lines in LOTR. VegaDark 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When noting the film series, I was talking about those involved in the production behind-the-scenes, not the actors themselves (though one of the professionals did comment that Liv Tyler seemed a natural with the language). - jc37 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was talking about behind-the-scenes people as well in my reply. I doubt they learned the entire language just to write the few lines in the movie properly. VegaDark 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the DVD, they were people who already had such knowledge, and were tapped to help due to that. I'll try to find specific names, if you wish. - jc37 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jc37. Vashti 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's not enough vocabulary that's been established as canon to really form a 'professional level', in my opinion. Veinor (talk to me) 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Tolkien's Lhammas (essentially the proto-elvish dictionaries) was published in book 5 of the History of Middle-earth series. As for completeness, there is enough of a vocabulary that there was an elvish wikipedia created (It didn't have enough contributors, and I believe was closed - I'll have to find the wikimedia link.) And here's a link to a scholarship site that may also be helpful: [2]. - jc37 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm convinced. Very good information. Definitely WP:N and WP:V.--WaltCip 10:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by jc37's evidence that there exists such people who have spoken the languages at a professional level. Doesn't matter whether m/any of them are Wikipedians. –Pomte 21:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this seems to me to speak to the whole KM-triggered kerfuffle over such categories/userboxes in the first place. Either we have only a few specifically useful categories (and language skill is useful, for example, in determining translation abilities, etc....), or else we have a whole slew of categories that many may find pointless & frivolous but nonetheless are a matter of personal expression. Given that the latter has been the consensus, I see no reason to delete this, even if it is merely the wishful thinking of LOTR fans. Eusebeus 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vandal Boxes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy delete per author request below. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These are all the user Vandal Boxes on Wikipedia, tagged with {(User Vandal Box}}" - I don't see why this needs a category. Seems to almost encourage vandalism. (I know this category doesn't actually categorize users, but it does categorize user pages, so I figured it was in the grey area between this and CFD). VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User vocals cats

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename to:

The consensus was that the number breakdown was acceptable, but not the babel-abbreviated naming. - jc37 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "User x" babel format is meant for languages, not skills in general. Further, we don't need to have categories for different proficiencies of this.

  • Delete all, or merge all to a suitable user category outside the babel naming conventions if no consensus to delete, as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the WP:BABEL format can't be extended to other areas of varying expertise. If people actually navigate through these categories, it'd definitely be useful to distinguish between amateurs and professionals. But it is unclear whether anyone who picks up a microphone at a karaoke or records themselves singing on YouTube is a singer. Delete all except vocals-4 and rename that to Category:Wikipedian professional singers. –Pomte 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While I agree that only the language categories should have the "user-#" naming convention, I disagree with the idea that the babel system of numbers (or any other progressing sequence) can't be used for categories other than babel cats. If it aids in navigation, if it aids in clarity and precision, then they should be "just fine". - jc37 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a rename would be an improvement, so I'd support that if no consensus to delete or merge. VegaDark (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about: Rename each to Wikipedian vocalists-# - jc37 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the userboxes say "singer", and there's a difference in scope; remember the death grunt category that got deleted. Singers-# can be subcategories to Category:Wikipedian vocalists, which can also include spoken word artists, growlers, screamers, and rappers. –Pomte 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School of Hard Knocks

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a "not" category, as this is for people who did not go to college. Can not help encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't mind if this were merged with that. VegaDark (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean that they should be merged, but that Category:Self-educated Wikipedians appears to be an example of a legitimate "not" category. In order to be self-educated, you have to not attend an official educational institution. If this gets deleted, than so should that? –Pomte 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Oppose Merge - This is different semantically than just being "self-educated". It's more about the "ups and downs" of life experience. - jc37 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A dizzyingly ambiguous category does not appear to have been designed with categorization in mind.--WaltCip 14:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Or else Delete. Ambiguous? It's pretty clear on this side of the pond: it means "I didn't go to college, you got a problem with that?" Which isn't really the same as claiming autodidacticism. Herostratus 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible to go to Harvard and the School of Hard Knocks, though probably not in that order.--Mike Selinker 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Dual boot cats

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was No consensus to Delete, Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations. - jc37 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of how these categories could really support collaboration. Just because they use such a configuration does not mean they are more knowledgeable about dual booting, and even if they are, one article to collaborate on does not justify an entire category for it. At least needs merging. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as nominator, merge both if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While technical information is useful, this is too vague. Dual boot with what? DR-DOS and Windows 3.1? : ) - jc37 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Would you rather have just one category for dual-booters, or a few hundred for each OS combination of dual booting ? Rugby471 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would I like a potentially all-inclusive category, or a myriad of sub-categories intersected by twos, consisting of every operating system in existence? - Neither - jc37 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians concerned about their weight

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many Wikipedians are concerned about a lot of things. We don't need a category for each one, though. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spicy food levels

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete - Nominating the parent for deletion. - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need levels for this, also levels are reserved for babel categories, which this isn't. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the WP:BABEL format can't apply to other types of categories, considering how useful they are to languages. This is a rare example in which user categories are truly useful (and take note that I'm against the whole idea of user categories in general): For most userboxes, you can find out who slapped them onto their userpages by using Special:Whatlinkshere. But for userboxes with parameters that affect what they say, like language and spicy food userboxes, there is no easy way to find out who likes spicy food vs. who really really loves spicy food. If you ever want to find that stuff out, user categories that get added depending on the parameter given come in really handy. Presumably, people with User:UBX/Red Pepper-3 would want to talk to others in their own league, not those weasly amateurs with User:UBX/Red Pepper-1. What you have suggested is a really huge spicy food category with less potential use. To complicate the clutter, there is also User:UBX/Curry which populates userpages into the same parent category. –Pomte 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the above. I had disillusioned myself into thinking it was one userbox. –Pomte 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Strongly Oppose Merge - I created these categories per existing userboxes which were separated by spiciness tolerance/preference levels. However, I don't see the need for categorisation of those who like spicy food. If kept, I oppose the merger, since it's a valid distinction for sub-categorisation, and if Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food is found to be valid categorisation, so then are these. - jc37 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate Babel user categories and apply the consensus detail at end of debate, preferrably that of the deletion persuasion per nom.--WaltCip 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including parent. No different than any other food category.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this nom results in deletion (which seems to be the direction it's heading), I'll nominate the parent cat for deletion as well. I would like to wait at least until then with the parent, since it was so recently up for discussion. - jc37 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 9

Primera División de México

You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

  • {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
  • {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
  • {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
  • {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

Talk page notices

Miscellaneous

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy the Mexican soccer league → Category:Wikipedian Primera División de México fans

(article: Primera División de México)

Category:Wikipedians are fans of Pumas UNAM → Category:Wikipedian Club Universidad Nacional fans

(article: Club Universidad Nacional)

Category:Wikipedians who growl for the UANL Tigres → Category:Wikipedian UANL Tigres fans

(article: UANL Tigres)

Category:Wikipedians who love Chivas de Guadalajara → Category:Wikipedian Club Deportivo Guadalajara fans

(article: Club Deportivo Guadalajara)

Based on the convention in Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams. These teams have multiple aliases, so it's best to stick to the article name until the article name changes. However, I think it's more clear to say "Wikipedian fans of Club..." because they can be construed as a "Wikipedian Club" of something. –Pomte 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]

Category:Wikipedians who are addicted to the Rayados del Monterrey

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans. VegaDark (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User&oldid=132166179"