Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:20, 19 March 2008

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

Template:Cfdu-header

Speedy nominations

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

New nominations by date

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

March 17

Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants

Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Project is inactive and AfD closing is primarily for Admins. Users should not be calling themselves closing participants when, in general, non-admin closures should be an exception not a norm. Collectonian (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As co-founder of said project. The second co-founder is on wikibreak, as i just came off of, and is also an admin. We are very capable of knowing when to close an afd. Nominater is just mad that I closed his AFD nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try some WP:AGF. The project has been tagged as inactive since September. Obviously the founders are not paying attention to it. Your personal issues with me have nothing to do with it. The category is for an inactive project and thus doesn't need to exist anymore. I also feel regular editors shouldn't be running around claiming to do what is primarily an admin task, but that's another issue.Collectonian (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How am I not assuming good faith here? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation that this is a retaliatory CfD is not AGF. Collectonian (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend you, but thats exactly what I call this. :) Toughen up your skin. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My skin is fine and I didn't take offense. I could care less of your opinion. I'm just reminding you. Collectonian (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all other WikiProject participant categories, and move this discussion to WP:UCFD where it belongs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Moved from WP:CFD to here where the debate belongs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the Wikiproject still exists. On the surface, the use of the Wikiproject seems questionable, though, so it could be an MfD candidate. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per VegaDark. If the project is deleted, delete the category. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who administer other MediaWiki sites

It's not useful to have a category here of users who administer any MediaWiki wiki. .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 06:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely disagree with deleting this. It is quite helpful — this is a great way for Wiki Admins to ask questions to other Wiki Admins. Timneu22 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Wikipedians who administer other WikiMedia sites". It's not notable to categorize all users who administer MediaWiki sites, because that could include just about any site, even one a user created himself. Users who admin other Foundation sites is another story. That's probably what the creator intended anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:25, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Keep and disagree with rename. Experience with the software is useful, even vanity setups. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think there are enough people on Wikipedia who have the requisite experience with the software. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there are others with a great deal of experience who are not on Wikipedia. Timneu22 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that a category for Wikipedians who administer other Wikimedia sites would be useful, but I don't think that the same can be said for a category for administrators of any site that uses the MediaWiki software (which is freely available, by the way). Such sites could be used as blogs, forums, attack sites, or something else (e.g. Uncyclopedia). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be very difficult to find a single place to get help on blogs, etc. This category would be a wonderful place to look. Timneu22 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Equazcion. This definitely has the potential to be helpful, but not as it currently stands. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be limited to Wikimedia sites and subcategorized by more specific details, for example, Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on English Wiktionary, Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on French Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on German Wikiquote, etc. bd2412 T 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I created the category to include Administrators of other MediaWiki sites, not WikiMedia. Thus, the categories suggested here won't cover it. The intention of the category is to list Admins of other Wikis, for Admins to find other Admins — this category shouldn't be related to WikiMedia projects only. Timneu22 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If your intention was to make it possible for users of MediaWiki software to find each other and ask for help (as you stated above), that's not what user categories are for. Wikipedia isn't the place to get software tech support. The only way this category can be kept is if it aids Wikipedia somehow. Aiding the Wikimedia Foundation is probably close enough to that. It's certainly closer than aiding MediaWiki users in finding technical help. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  - So how does it help to have a catgegory like "this user has a cat" or "this user plays the violin" ?
Strong delete - Don't need to categorize this. Who cares? This could potentially be anyone who has gone to the effort of starting their own Wiki. Not helpful to the project. I would support a category for those who are admins on other WikiMedia projects, however, but it is clear that that was not the intention of the creation of this category. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like reality television

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like reality television to Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - current naming conventions of similar cats. - jc37 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it along with all subcategories. (1st choice) followed by rename per nom (and depopulate, since being interested in reality television in general is probably too broad) (2nd choice). All subcategories are "who like" categories, which do not help the encyclopedia. Would possibly support rename of subcategories to "interested in", I suppose as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Category:Wikipedians who like MythBusters

Category:Wikipedians who like MythBusters - single article category. - jc37 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love the show, but no particular reason to have the category. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 18 March 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]

Category:Wikipedians who like The X Factor

Category:Wikipedians who like The X Factor - single user category, and per various precedent, specifically these game shows. - jc37 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? - per various precedent, specifically these game shows. - jc37 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Never Mind the Buzzcocks

Category:Wikipedians who like Never Mind the Buzzcocks - per various precedent, specifically these game shows. - jc37 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-sco subcats

Category:User en-sco-1

Category:User en-sco-2

Category:User en-sco-3

Category:User en-sco-4

Category:User en-sco-5

UpMerge all to Category:User en-sco

All of the rest of the national versions of english have been upmerged, per this discussion. See also the topical index for more examples. - jc37 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge all to Category:User en-sco - as nominator. - jc37 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - including Category:User en-sco (1st choice) followed by upmerge all per nom (2nd choice). Even one category for those who speak Scottish English is too many. There will never be a Scottish English Wikipedia, so the category is useless. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all as per nom, with an eye towards deleting the parent category along with all of the other "national" varieties of English as a group, as per VegaDark and my comments in the previous discussion about these categories here. I suggest upmerging first and then submitting the parent and its siblings as a group to eliminate WAX and OSE wikilawyering at DRV, which is likely to happen, considering the past history of this subject.
The huge blowup last September over these categories was nothing less than a form of nationalism carried into the Babel categories, and has no purpose here. English is English, and there is no ISO differentiation between "British English" and "American English" and "Singapore English" or any of the myriad other varieties that have been quantified by users intent on creating their own little fiefdoms. None of these will ever get a project of their own; the Wikimedia incubator specifically requires an ISO 639 code for a separate wikimedia project. All requests for non-ISO categorized languages and dialects are directed to the "Incubator Plus" at Wikia, offsite. Horologium (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eguor admins

Basically the same argument as demonstrated at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008#February 13. (The link directs to the discussion for Category:Rouge admins, which was deleted.) Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 12:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unlike Category:Rouge admins, this category isn't meant as a joke, and therefore most arguments for deletion that can be found in the link you provided above don't apply here. --Conti|✉ 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moved here by me from the speedy section since it warrants a discussion. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't think it needs to be deleted, as its so closely tied to Category:Rouge admins, it doesn't make sense for it to exist when the other does not. Sadly, delete. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those who want to keep it, we could at least merge it into Category:Eguor Wikipedians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs)

Merge it into what? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly harmless but if we want to be strictly consistent we ought to delete it. Therefore, Keep, as strict consistency is the bugaboo of... ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since Category:Rouge admins is currently a redlink, it only makes sense that Category:Eguor admins be blue :) krimpet✽ 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah isn't that sad? We have a whole process dedicated to determining whether a link shows up red or blue. Really makes you wonder... Equazcion •✗/C • 15:29, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the project page is fine and the userbox is fine, but the category serves no purpose other than being a bottom-of-the-page notice. We can dispute the degree to which either this category or the Rouge category was a joke, but that doesn't change the fact that it affords little or no navigational utility and does not facilitate improvement of the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Black Falcon. Category does not benefit encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if community consensus is to delete 'rouge', it makes sense that 'eguor' should be deleted as well. Ral315 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category. My primary argument here is that, unlike Category:Rouge admins (rest in peace), this category plays a practical, useful role: a resource for confused editors to contact an administrator who has declared themselves to have an active interest in editors who are in exactly the position they themselves are—confused. Whilst CAT:ROUGE did not play any significant encyclopedic role, this category is actively improving the efficiency of the Wikipedia system of operations. As an additional comment, in response to Ral315's post (above), I do not see how the deletion of the rouge admins category should automatically equate to the deletion of the eugor admins category: the topic of each's deletion should be addressed separately, and the individual merits of each category considered separately—not a blanket deletion on everything related to admin status, regardless of any connections in between. Just my thoughts. AGK § 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, on the whole, the connection is stronger than just being "related to admin status": this category was created in response to the ROUGE category (whether to mirror it, poke fun at it, or for some combination of reasons), and its current name both reflects and continues that history. By the way, could you please clarify how the category functions as a resource for editors? (Also, if the category has a practical purpose, perhaps it should be renamed to a title that better reflects that purpose...) Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supporters of Franjo Tuđman

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. We have enough precedent for categories like this that WP:SNOW applies, not to mention there is no indication this is a user category which is probably enough to speedy on its own. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supporters of Franjo Tuđman - delete, politically divisive, only one member, used for political soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't categorise users by support for or opposition to political or social issues (see here). Wikipedia is not a political soapbox, a battleground, or a social networking site. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 18:39, 17 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 15

Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language

Rename Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language to Category:Wikipedian contributors to other Wikipedians by language or similar

Rename subcategories: "Category:Contributors to the [language] Wikipedia" to "Category:Wikipedian contributors to the [language] Wikipedia"

or

Rename subcategories: "Category:Contributors to the [language] Wikipedia" to "Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the [language] Wikipedia"

Nominator's rationale: The current titles do not make clear that these are user categories and should not include articles about notable Wikipedia editors. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to either proposed naming convention. I suppose I slightly prefer the second, but no real preference. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

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]

Category:Wikipedians interested in television

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series and depopulate of members except subcats (making it solely a Wikipedia parent category).

Looking over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), it's fairly obvious that there is the potential for confusion over the usage of being "interested in television". This is similar to the "interested in radio", and "interested in books" issues that we have as well. This category is simply too broadly confusing in inclusion criteria (and depending on how you look at it, it's potentially an all-inclusive category). While I know that there are some who would like to see this entire tree deleted, let's at least agree on the rename for clarity first, to try to prevent a closure of "no consensus". - jc37 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and depopulate of members as nominator. - jc37 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and depopulate of users per nom, without prejudice to creation of more clearly-named categories for those who are interested in specific aspects of television technology or history, rather than in watching TV generally. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and depopulate per nom (but with reservations about such noms as mentioned above). VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't depopulate and rename to Wikipedians interested in Television subjects or something similar. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as that is a more correct title. Depopulate, because this currently serves best as a parent category. However, I think the question needs raising about the appropriateness of the various "Wikipedians who like Show XYZ" categories. As we've discussed before, the "liking" categories typically have a precedent of deletion. This is because liking something does not necessarily equate to wanting (or being able to) write on it. I can tell you, not every person who watches CSI is interested in writing about it. That being said, I oppose renaming them to "users interested in Show XYZ," because that is a mis categorization of the current users. The best course of action would be to depopulate and delete the various show subcategories. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since there may be people in that category interested in television technology. - LA @ 21:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this touches on the part of my comment regarding "creation of more clear-named categories for those who are interested in specific aspects of television technology or history". Would not Category:Wikipedians interested in television technology (see the corresponding Category:Television technology) be a better title for a category with such a focus? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User tsolyáni

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

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as per nom. See Tokipona discussion below for an explanation of why this will never have a Wikipedia edition of its own. Horologium (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - also see prior precedent for fictional or non-existent languages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't mind. However, I'd like to gently point out that the category is not "totally useless", as it can be used for fans of Tsolyáni to find each other on Wikipedia (like other user box categories do for Red Dwarf or Blake's Seven or whatever). There is a small but fervent fan base that does bother to learn the language and practice it (as the tsolyáni-devoted forums on Yahoo prove, for example). Urhixidur (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can still use the "what links here" function on the userbox page to see who is using the userbox to find such people. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Fictional languages don't warrant such categories, in my humble opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User wenedyk

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

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. Babelcruft. See Tokipona discussion below for more on why this will never have a wikipedia edition of its own. Horologium (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - also see prior precedent for fictional or non-existent languages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Fictional languages don't warrant such categories, in my humble opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User tokipona

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

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. However, I have to note that there actually was a Tokipona Wikipedia, which was shut down and banished to Wikia, along with Klingon and a couple of other eccentric wikis. The wikia version appears to have 366 articles. Under the current rules for creation of new wikis, this (and the other two "languages" nominated in this batch) are not eligible for their own wikipedia editions. m:List of Wikipedias#Test Wikipedias states "Languages without an ISO code can go to the Incubator Plus, the place where rejected tests from the Wikimedia Incubator go to." (For those who don't follow links, Incubator Plus is located on Wikia.) Horologium (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Horologium - could not facilitate translation efforts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete most Definitely delete the additional level (-1, -2, -3, -4) categories, but I can see keeping the base tokipona category.. but wouldn't be upset if the whole set were gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - given the extremely low number of speakers, and that we have no translation or localization needs that these would facilitate, a category serves little collaborative purpose. krimpet✽ 17:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phantastic Wikipedians

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

Rename or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Phan (and the category intro), it is merely for the single character. (See also this edit], which refers to this edit.) No prejudice against creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in The Phantom of the Opera. - jc37 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37 - narrow scope; also, the userboxes that populate the category (User:Major Despard/Userboxes/Phantom No Return, User:Doma 89/Userboxes/phantom) don't seem to have any direct relation to a desire or ability to collaborate on articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans

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

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three of four users in the category are there due to {{User gbfan}}, which is a userbox for The Real Ghostbusters, an animated television series. Thus, delete as too narrow in scope and as populated by a userbox that doesn't suggest any collaborative merit (1st choice) or rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Real Ghostbusters per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television (2nd choice). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion based on the above, but I would say independent creation of the category should be allowed based on several pages that could be collaborated on that are listed at Ghostbusters (disambiguation). VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somewhat per Black Falcon but expand it to Category:Wikipedians who like Ghostbusters for the whole franchise. - LA @ 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans

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

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably comparable to a set of nominations involving the Marx brothers at CFD and DRV (resulting in deletion). In addition, we don't categorise by actor(s) both at CFD and here at UCFD, per much precedent. - jc37 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion per that reasoning. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we shouldn't categorize per actor is more about the amount of content/articles that it would cover, rather than it really being about the number. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. A lot of content is tied to the Three Stooges, and it would seem reasonable to me to make a user interest category for it. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jc37. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series

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

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedians interested in The Matrix series (per current convention of the categories) or Wikipedians interested in The Matrix (series) (per naming conventions of such articles) - leaning towards the former rather than the latter. (franchise) isn't in the naming conventions, and appears to have been one of a sequence of bold moves. (Which I'll be reverting.) - jc37 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming "who like" --> "interested in". The category seems to be populated mostly by a userbox that does not suggest any collaborative interest, so I would prefer not to rename it to make it an 'interest' category. For this reason (lack of an apparent collaborative purpose/scope), weak delete. The mere fact of having watched and liked the films is not something we should categorise. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't necessarily be opposed to deleting based on BF's reasoning, and now that jc37 has moved the article to (series), that is certainly a better rename option. Don't really have a preference, other than to say that if a category does exist, it should encompass those who wish to collaborate not just on the movies, but all matrix-related articles (such as video games, books, etc.). The addition of "series" at the end makes it seem more geared only towards the movies rather than including the other aspects of Matrix franchise. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose people who like it will more than likely keep an eye on it, interest is just to vague. Plus, my categories are taking up a big enough space on my user page to have "who like" changed to "interested in" would make it even bigger. It would add 5 characters per "like" category, which is a lot of categories on my user page at the moment, since most don't have user templates in template space. - LA @ 20:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang

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

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. This category is reasonably well filled with users. Have they been asked whether they use it for collaboration? They are unlikely to have the category on their watch list, so almost certainly do not know this deletion debate is happening. Rhyming slang can appear on articles other than Rhyming slang itself, so the possibility of collaboration is more widespread than you think. Rhyming slang is also complex and evolves. It often needs help from a friend to understand a new variety of it. This is a useful category and I see no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Category:Wikipedians in Gary

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Gary, Indiana for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 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 Billings Montana

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians from Billings, Montana. Adding comma. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 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 Baton Rouge

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support this action. Sf46 (talk) 01:03, 15 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 Allentown

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Allentown, Pennsylvania for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users that are weird

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 - G1 (nonsense) - jc37 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Category:User enc and all subcategories

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all - noting also: this precedent as well. - jc37 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete all or merge all to Category:User en as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. More babelcruft. There is a Cajun French language that is recognized (ISO 639-3 code frc), but not "Cajun English". Additionally, enc is the ISO 639-3 code for En, an obscure Vietnamese language. Horologium (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I do not believe that these could ever assist translation efforts and, thus, facilitate collaboration on articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users that also have a WikiAlmanac account

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 as C1 - empty. No prejudice against creation of Category:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiAlmanac, presuming: a.) creation of a related (cited/referenced) article. b.) interest of 4 or more members. Noting of course that the above does not prevent further nomination at editorial discretion. (Noting also that the creator of the category, and the single "keep" below has been indef blocked.) - jc37 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists

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

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

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

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

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

March 10

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

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. Kbdank71 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, ~~didn't we just do this two weeks ago?~~ -- Ned Scott 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As I recall, it was empty of users and contained just two other categories, both of which have been moved to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The "literature" naming is obviously clearer, especially for authors. (Noting that someone else created the cat.) This left a cat that would be empty save for a subcat of a single Wikipedian.
It's been pretty well established that "Wikipedians interested in books", as a category name, is simply too vague. So this is a question of whether it should exist as a parent category. (To be honest, I nearly just moved the subcat to Category:Wikipedians by interest, but even after the several discussions, it's still only a single member category.) - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, since no one was really interested in being categorized like this, and it would require a rename (and possibly a change in it's inclusion criteria) to be more practical, I'll retract my keep. -- Ned Scott 09:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the subcat to Category:Wikipedians by interest. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where else would all of the sub-categories go? Are you planning on deleting every sub-category of this category? I was planning on creating more sub-categories for the authors and series I read since I can't seem to keep myself in this general one. - LA @ 20:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategories have been relocated to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:18, 15 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 read Tolkien

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia

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

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

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]

Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble

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. Kbdank71 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm not sure if there are enough articles on this subject to support collaboration or not, knowing "who plays" scrabble is not helpful. Neutral on an "interested in" version though. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the thought did pop in my head.. "quick, find a Wikipedian who can play Scrabble! The server is on the fritz and we can only make articles out of these letters... " -- Ned Scott 06:01, 15 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 Diplomacy

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. Kbdank71 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 German-style board games

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. Kbdank71 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a "Wikipedians by gaming website" category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 1

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

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

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

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers - Template:Lc1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Users who push random buttons

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

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

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

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

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

Category:User LB22

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Devil May Cry

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in a region

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion has been open for nearly 13 days and has received relatively little comment. Relisting in lieu of a "no consensus" result. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Re-stating): Support: "We could rename it to "Wikipedians by interest in countries", move the categories for ancient civilisations to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history, and use the broad regional categories (e.g. Africa, the Caribbean) as parent categories for individual country categories. In that way, it would approximate the category structure of Category:Wikipedians by location." - Only change to the text was to substitute the rename target as discussed above. - jc37 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed my comments directly above from "...in a country" to "...in countries". I'd like to sidestep any potential future drama concerning whether such-n-such name is one country or two. - jc37 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in travel - Template:Lc1

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in hexadecimal numbers - Template:Lc1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 22

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio - Template:Lc1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"user categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building"

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

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

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of the subcategories are now on deletion review, so I don't know if this can be closed until that is over. If that closes as endorse, this looks like a pretty clear delete. If it closes as overturn and relist, then this will likely have to wait even longer to be closed until after the relisted categories get closed. *yawn* VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the DRV results in "relist", I suggest they be subcats of Category:Wikipedians by radio series (which I just created). Category:Wikipedians interested in radio should be a parent cat, if kept at all. That said, I think a parent of a different name may be in order. (See: Serial (radio and television) for more information.) So either way, I support depopulation (and possibly deletion) of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio. - jc37 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by radio talk shows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedians by panelist game shows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedians by radio series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Xbox 360

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Meher Baba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who try not to worry

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 * '''Note''' - I created the category to include Administrators of other '''MediaWiki''' sites, not '''WikiMedia'''. Thus, the categories suggested here won't cover it. The intention of the category is to list Admins of ''other'' Wikis, for Admins to find other Admins &mdash; this category shouldn't be related to WikiMedia projects only. [[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]] ([[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 **If your intention was to make it possible for users of MediaWiki software to find each other and ask for help (as you stated above), that's not what user categories are for. Wikipedia isn't the place to get software tech support. The only way this category can be kept is if it aids Wikipedia somehow. Aiding the Wikimedia Foundation is probably close enough to that. It's certainly closer than aiding MediaWiki users in finding technical help. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<font color="#000">Equazcion</font>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''22:18, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)''</small>
+*** So how does it help to have a catgegory like "this user has a cat" or "this user plays the violin" ?
 *'''Strong delete''' - Don't need to categorize this.  Who cares? This could potentially be anyone who has gone to the effort of starting their own Wiki. Not helpful to the project. I would support a category for those who are admins on other WikiMedia projects, however, but it is clear that that was not the intention of the creation of this category. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] ([[User talk:VegaDark|talk]]) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)