This temporary notice is a friendly reminder: This page currently has a large number of individual discussions. If you are commenting here, please check back on each discussion for possible responses. And please double-check that you have not overlooked a nomination that you may have wished to comment on.
Delete (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice), but oppose rename. Identification != interest. For instance, I am a Wikipedian, but have little interest in any of the articles related to Wikipedia. I adhere to a certain ideology, but I have no interest editing articles related to that (or any other) political ideology. Black Falcon(Talk)18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that being an adherent means studying about it, which means you're showing interest in it. This is different than most religions in which you can be "in it" by merely saying you are. - jc3720:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, given the description provided in the article, but I'm not sure whether people who add themselves to the category made or will make that distinction. Although the article does state that "Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma", it also notes that "Daojiao/Taochiao refers to Daoism as a religion". – Black Falcon(Talk)21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents. As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice), but oppose rename. Identification != interest. For instance, I am a Wikipedian, but have little interest in any of the articles related to Wikipedia. I adhere to a certain ideology, but I have no interest editing articles related to that (or any other) political ideology. Whether Kaballah really is or isn't a religion, I think it's treated as one; for instance, the article states that "Kabalah refers to a set of esoteric beliefs and practices ...". Black Falcon(Talk)18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that being an adherent means studying about it, which means you're showing interest in it. This is different than most religions in which you can be "in it" by merely saying you are. - jc3720:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents. As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users who self-identify with a particular set of beliefs. Self-identification with a set of beliefs implies neither an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject nor an above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic content that does not violate the "no original research" policy. – Black Falcon(Talk)18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents. As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, being a member of a religion (and a joke one at that) does not foster contribution and typically leads to inherent bias. ^demon[omg plz]13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a parody of this project. SubGenius is a parody religion and I suspect that there is a strong element of parody in this category as in "They have a Church, we have a parody Church; they have a savior, we have a parodysavior; they have a category, we have a parody category." There are only two or three SubGenius-relatedtwelve SubGenius-centric articles (and only a few main ones), they can find each other readily on the talk pages. --Justanother13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just outa curiosity, from where are you quoting? Also: there are eighty-seven SubGenius-related articles. Somewhat more than two. Even somewhat more than three. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am "quoting" a hypothetical statement. The clues that it is a hypothetical are my "I suspect" and "as in". Yes, you are right that there a number of articles that mention SubGenius but that is hardly the main concern of them, e.g. Richard Rosenberg or The Firesign Theatre. However, there are more than two or three majorly related ones, there are maybe twelve, although some of those twelve are of dubious notability, e.g. Jehovah 1 or Dobbstown. But there are twelve and I should have checked before naming a number. --Justanother22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a userpage notice may be useful, but I see little or no reason to browse through a category of users who self-identify with a particular set of beliefs. Self-identification with a set of beliefs implies neither an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject nor an above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic content that does not violate the "no original research" policy. – Black Falcon(Talk)18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents. As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm commenting here, but my comments apply to Category:Subgenius Wikipedians as well. I'd like to assume good faith about the UCFDing of these categories. Can someone help me by letting me know what the reason is to bring these back up after they were protected by a strong consensus decision 2 months ago? I'd hate for it to be "we don't think as many people who disagree with us are paying attention this time." DenisMoskowitz01:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These serve absolutely no use in improving the encyclopedia. Knowing whether an editor reads or participates in 4chan, Myspace, Slashdot, or YTMND is irrelevant to the project, and is only potentially useful for social networking, which is not helpful. There is no reason to imagine that people that list themselves as fans or readers of a website are interested in contributing encyclopedic content about it; they are just advertising information about their preferences, and, to be useful, should say that they are interested in collaboration if they are. Dmcdevit·t03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I don't entirely oppose the nom, It could be argued that at least some of the websites have articles and so the categories are useful for collaboration. Also, the subcats have not been tagged. If/when this happens, I would like to see the Wikipedia sister projects, the Wikia projects, and "other" wikis, listed in separate, individual noms, if you wouldn't mind. - jc3703:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before I looked at the cat, I was thinking that I can easily see its use, but I wondered if it wouldn't be better served as split into subcats which explain which tools the user(s) utilise rather than just a broad generic cat. If you're having issues with a tool that you're using, I presume that asking someone else who uses the tool might be what you'd like to do. However, seeing now that it's a single user with a single userbox... - jc3703:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly useless. One member of the category, and apparently someone who doesn't realize that the "source code" is what anyone can see from the edit window. Dmcdevit·t02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member implies that one has knowledge and insights that non-members do not and that cannot but help the article. It is not the condition of being a member that hurts one's contributions, what hurts is the normal and common humanoid behavior of thinking that one's own opinions and experience constitute the whole of reality when coupled with an aggressive editing attitude. --Justanother13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On one hand, I agree with ProveIt, but on the other, I strongly believe that Wikipedia is better off without any of these, and if it takes cherry-picking them off one by one, so be it. --Kbdank7116:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^demon and Kbdank71. The "knowledge and insights" to which Justanother refers would almost certainly constitute original research. When it comes to articles, sources (should) matter, not personal viewpoints, interpretations, understandings, and the like. – Black Falcon(Talk)19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR? Not necessarily. Would you not say that a physicist might have knowledge and insight of physics that would benefit the articles on physics? As opposed to a layperson? The material is already in RS, the knowledge and insight gives you the ability to know what you are looking at and translate that to a better article. To a non-Scientologist, "raw" Scientology looks like nonsense and gibberish while I can make it understandable to a layperson because I understand it. Not WP:OR, simply word choice. And POV. The POV that it is understandable. If you approach Scientology (or physics) with the preconceived notion that you cannot understand it you will create quite a different article than if you approach it from an understanding viewpoint. Personally, I believe that every article in this encyclopedia should give preference to the POV of understanding as opposed to not understanding. So if that makes me a POV editor then so be it. I understand Scientology; critics of Scientology understand criticism of Scientology - they are different subjects. --Justanother20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see now to what you were referring. However, here's the thing: whereas we can assume that a physicist has subject-specific knowledge that is relevant to articles on physics, I don't think we can assume the same for adherents of religions. In fact, I don't think that the "profession" and "religion" categories are really comparable. Getting a job requires some knowledge relevant to performing the duties of the position; self-identifying with a religion does not. Keeping a job requires one to have or to learn certain knowledge; continuing to self-identify with a religion does not. Performing the duties associated with a job requires certain knowledge; merely being an adherent of a religion really does not. The fact that there exists Category:Wikipedians interested in religions for those who have an active interest in editing articles related to religion further convinces me that religious identification categories themselves do not foster collaboration. – Black Falcon(Talk)22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Black Falcon's sentiments. Being a physicist implies you have knowledge of physics. Being a member of a religion does not. I am agnostic, and yet I know more about Christianity (being raised Southern Baptist, and having an interest in the history of the Catholic Church), than many devout Christians I know. See the problem? ^demon[omg plz]13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for Scientology, the essence of being a Scientologist is studying and using Scientology - "understanding it", if you will. For this reason, a Scientologist is head and shoulders above non-Scientologists when it comes to actually writing about Scientology. Critics of Scientology are most suited to discussing criticism of Scientology. Some here might say that sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. are most qualified to discuss Scientology but they come from their own POV, usually a secular one bordering on materialism and scientism. Theologians are truly most qualified to discuss Scientology from a non-Scientologist viewpoint presuming that they have done the necessary research but that is a very small group indeed and one not likely represented here. In my experience, other religions also stress the value of study, most notably Islam and Judaism. The key point is that, for a member of a religion, the religion has substance and knowledge to be gained. Just as physics has substance and knowledge to be gained. For that reason a category by religious affiliation can be as helpful as a category like Wikipedian engineers. --Justanother15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that adherents of a religion are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents. As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians by mental and physiological condition and subcats
- I am sympathetic to those who truly have such disabilities. However, as noted below, a user page notice of some kind (such as a userbox) should be enough to convey that one has such a condition. There is no need for categories grouping such users together. Please comment under the individual nominations below. - jc3700:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these with fire, along will all subcategories below. We've said it time and again, they do not foster contribution. I have never once seen how people in "Wikipedians who survived cancer" has helped them on Cancer or related articles. I am really sorry for your condition, really, but putting yourself in a category isn't helping Wikipedia. ^demon[omg plz]14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight000121:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC) some subcats still under discussion....[reply]
Keep This Category is realy just for me to give people a Special barnstar so they dont have to sign the gustbook. this is just for me to see not you or any one. --Dillio41122:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Vanity category. "this is just for me to see not you or any one." - This is not what the category system is for. And "Whatlinkshere" should serve your purposes just as well. - jc3723:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The utility of the 'by profession' categories lies in the fact that being a member of a certain profession usually implies possession of certain specialised knowledge or, more importantly, access to or awareness of information and sources about a subject. That argument does not seem to apply to this category.
Comment - I was going to say "Keep", as it's a profession with a knowledgebase like any other. But it occurred to me that this could be seen as a "not" category. There are all the other professions and then there are homemakers. I'm torn at the moment, so staying neutral for now. - jc3715:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can this category be used for collaboration? "Homemaker" is far to broad of a category to facilitate collaboration on any articles. VegaDark (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a homemaker requires more work than most professions and doing it right requires skills worth identifying. Mikebar14:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a single-user category for speakers of Dutch Low Saxon, a variant of Low German; all regional and local dialects of "Low German" and/or "Low Saxon" receive the ISO 639-3 code "nds". We should not create separate categories (with user-created classification codes) for minor variations across national boundaries.
These are userbox-populated categories for fans of individual teams in the Primera División de México. Aside from the userbox creator, who appears in all five subcats and the parent category, the subcats contain only one other user and the parent two others. I propose that we do one of the following:
Upmerge the subcategories to the parent category, which will take care of the issue of overcategorisation and category clutter and also reduce the WP:MYSPACE aspect of specific "fan" categories.
In both cases, the favoured team of each individual user will still be identified by the userbox on their userpage.
This is a category for fans of the Punjab cricket team. Despite being originally created in March 2006 (see Special:Undelete/Category:Users who support the Punjab cricket team), the category still contains only two user subpages (which are either editing tests or userpage archives) of a single user who has been effectively inactive since March 2007, when the user retired. For these reasons alone, and putting aside the issue of the relative worth of 'sports fans' categories, this category does not foster collaboration; there's no reason to preserve a category that contains only the user subpages of a retired user.
The knowledge that a particular user is taking a wikibreak can be useful; a list of all Wikipedians who are on wikibreak (or, rather, those who use the template) is not, except perhaps to someone trying to choose an account to hack. I can't think of any valid reason that someone would need or want to seek out users who are temporarily inactive.
Nominator's rationale: When I first saw this category for Wikipedian paramilitary people, I thought it would include members of groups such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, and the like. As it turns out, however, all of the users and userboxes in this category are affiliated with the US Civil Air Patrol; in fact, all of the userpages in the category either also appear in the CAP category, sport a userbox proclaiming an affiliation to the CAP, or both. To avoid confusion and duplication, and to promote specificity, I propose that these categories be merged. Black Falcon(Talk)05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. And I think someone needs to learn how to add options to a template - there are more userboxes than members of the cat, and they're all essentially the same, but for some minor text changes. - jc3707:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being originally created in January 2006 (see Special:Undelete/Category:Pastry Chef Wikipedians), this category still contains only one user, whose userpage identifies him as "an aspiring pastry chef" (emphasis added). Moreover, the user has been effectively inactive since May 2006 (having made only two edits since then). Also, I think that the scope of this category is too narrow to adequately foster encyclopedic collaboration in a way that does not constitute original research.
Merge per jc37 "participants" (13 members) into "members" (73 members). I think that can be considered indicative of the general leaning of the WikiProject regarding this issue.Black Falcon(Talk)00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "members" into "participants". Two reasons: 1.) "Membership" as opposed to "participation" was one of the downfalls of Esperanza. 2.) It's obvious by the fact that the "members" cat has them all categorised under "U" that this is a userbox. Compare to partcipants... - jc3701:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Several more added. (Also, I've been manually repairing those that just need capitalization correction to some part of their name, when only one template needs changing.)--Mike Selinker06:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These all should be formatted to the standard groupings (WikiProject in front, members or participants in the back, with no preference for which). I'm not in favor of categories for people who like the projects without participating in them, so I could support either merging or deleting those.--Mike Selinker23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with a preference for "members" over "participants" in all cases ("participant" implies a level of activity which may not exist), except for the following:
Agreed. I've recategorized those two into that category, and redid the suggested rename to match that category. (By the way, "members" is just fine with me.)--Mike Selinker18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom except Delete the two BF pointed out. These two are another casualty of using "members" in the category names. Let's worry more about getting people to collaborate, and less about who's "included" in the membership. And again, I prefer participants over members. - jc3701:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot resist the need to comment on this passage above: "It creates the spectre of having heirarchical distinctions between non-admin editors, which seems antithetical to the concept of a project". It seems that a call to ethics could be applied to the author who is providing a clear unethical division between non-admin editors and the other editors, highly distastefull ☤'ProfBrumby13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a category for participants, WP:Keep It Simple has no members as such. This category is for Wikipedians who choose to use KIS Labels instead of userboxes ℒibrarian211:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ErrorThe category indicates who uses those labels not membership. It is thought to be used, if some main change is done to the KIS labels, for checking that everyone using the KIS labels is updated Heltzen◩11:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this is just a "users by how they choose to format their userboxes (or lack thereof)" then this should go. (Compare to the idea of having a category: "Wikipedians who use userboxtop to display their userboxes", or even "Wikipedians who choose to use userboxes".) As an aside, I would presume that "Whatlinkshere" would be more appropriate for this? - jc3715:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe category is for editors who help with minor tasks in the project. There are two categories of participants, those who actively participate and those who choose to participate with minor tasks, the need to separate them is for knowing to whom to assign an specific task when needed. Daoken12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - There is no such thing as a "minor" task. It's a matter of helping out, or not. See my comments under the main nom for more on this. - jc3715:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each one a subcat of the previous one. The last two are single user cats (the same user). 4 cats for one Wikipedian? - jc3720:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move one, delete others I actually discussed this with the creator of the categories some time back. What it appeared he was attempting to do was create an ethnicity category (improperly, inside the language categories). I had actually forgotten that discussion until now. I'd suggest identifying one of the Chavacano/Chabacano cats as a target, and moving it to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, and then deleting the other and the rest of the pidgins and creoles tree. Horologiumt-c00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All as per nom. I oppose deleting the whole tree, because there is a use for these categories; as pointed out at one of the many UCFD discussions for this category (at least three since April 2007), it was noted that when dealing with autistic editors, it may be helpful to solicit assistance from another autistic editor. This was done when dealing with a somewhat disruptive editor who was focussed on Lord & Taylor. However, I don't think it is necessary to overcategorize with all of the listed subcats. Failing a merge, I would suggest deleting the PDD-NOS cat and the high-functioning cat; the latter is ill-defined, and the former is a catchall for any condition that does not have a specific DSM-IV code, which makes it a poor candidate for categorization as there is little collaborative potential. Horologiumt-c02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Jc37/Horologium, selectively delete HFA and PDD-NOS per Horologium, or delete all per Jc37/^demon. I know that this comment doesn't provide much clarification for the closing admin; it's sole purpose is to argue against the status quo. – Black Falcon(Talk)16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with consolidating the Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and high-functioning autism categories. Although related, these are all distinct conditions, and each has its own degree of effect upon a person — people with PDD-NOS will be very different from those with HFA. I think, at the very least, the Asperger's category should be kept, as this seems to be the best-defined and widest band on the autism spectrum. -Severa (!!!) 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it came down to it, I would only oppose merging the Asperger's category into the parent autism spectrum category, but not the PDD-NOS or high-functioning autism categories. -Severa (!!!) 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc3710:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Severa. There are differences between the autism spectrum disorders, and there are certain times where another editor in the same category may be needed.
For example, knowing that an editor who is editing an article has Asperger's (rather than another ASD) and there is some dispute with the edits, another editor with Asperger's would probably be helpful in helping with a resolution since they are more likely to use literal language, have a better understanding of the other editor (e.g. probably doesn't do to well with criticism or easily mistakes when someone is or isn't being critical), and that quoting relevant Wikipedia guidelines/rules/etc would help as those with AS tend to follow them religiously - although may be slightly overlooked if the article is something they are highly foccused at editing. I know this is just an example, but since both editors have added themselves to that category, Wikipedia is likely something they are both heavily interested in, even though they probably concentrate their editing in different areas.
The same can be said of the other categories.
Is there a distinction between HFA and Asperger's? That hasn't been clarified yet, however not everyone with Asperger's would be classed as having HFA - since not everyone with Asperger's have an average/above-average intellect (although it is typical). Also, the HFA article makes no mention of whether there is a link between HFA and genetics (whereas the AS one does).
Those that are elsewhere on the autism spectrum probably don't share these similarities and "shared qualities".
Those with PDD-NOS do not share as many similarites as those that can easily be classified by one definition. They may share similarites with autism, rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, asperger syndrome (or a combination of characteristics from one or more groups including neuro-typical). If an editor with autism and another with asperger's were to have trouble reaching agreement, the person with asperger's would probably give in to the person with autism. If someone with PDD-NOS were to get involved - and are PDD-NOS because they not only have similarties to autism but have similarites to asperger's too - there would be a higher chance of reaching agreement between the two editors).
And yes, I know the examples have all been about conflict/dispute resoloution, but it was just one example of how keeping these categories would be worthwhile - I could have used collaboration between editors as a different example. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count)12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the idea that users would require others of their medical condition in order to be able to communicate... It just sounds like the classic: Unless you grew up in my generation, you wouldn't understand how I talk; Unless you grew up in the projects you wouldn't understand; If I'm reading your comments correctly, what we're talking about is a written style of prose. And I would guess that every single one of the many million of users who edit Wikipedia have a different style of prose. This walks a rather fine line of WP:AGF. (And for that matter Assume the presence of a belly-button.) - jc3713:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore my comment then. I rarely edit wikipedia anymore because I can't tell when someone is making a personal attack against me (as they assume bad faith) and because I'm not able to read between the lines, and I can only go by how your comment reads to me. I think this is why I stopped getting involved in these discussions. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count)14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to read that, but if you in any way feel or felt that I was making any sort of personal attack against you, you have my heartfelt apologies. You are, of course, welcome to comment in these discussions. My comments directly above were about the idea being put forth, not about the person offering the perspective. As I was saying, it walks a ratherfine line, and makes me concerned about questions of presuming good faith of our editors. I wasn't suggesting that you weren't. So again, my apologies, for any confusion that may have caused. - jc3716:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian college seniors
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categorisation on the basis of year of study does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. In addition, and despite having existed for 20 months, the category contains only one member. Since the single user joined the category in May 2006 (and, thus, may no longer be a senior), I think deletion is preferable to merging in this case.
Delete, which I'm sure comes as a shock to many, or possibly Merge with Category:Wikipedian college students - The one user in that category claims membership on a separate userboxes page under the heading Irrelevant userboxes. However, I also note that the userbox in question was copied from the original before it was modified to remove reference to the category. In spite of that, I tend to agree with the assertion that the category has questionable merit, especially in light of the fact that the condition of being a senior only lasts for one year, and that the condition of being a senior does not provide a significantly different perspective beyond being a college student of any other undergraduate level. So, either merge with Category:Wikipedian college students and fix the userbox, or delete it altogether. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me10:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The two comments at Category talk:Wikipedian commercial airline pilots suggest that this should not be a separate category, largely because the category "incorrectly assumes that a commercial pilot is an airline pilot". Indeed, the userbox that populates this category (User:Luke119/userbox/instcommpilot) says nothing about being an airline pilot. On the whole, this 2-user userbox-populated category seems to have little potential for growth and little need to exist separately from its parent (which also includes just two users). – Black Falcon(Talk)05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually there is a difference. The technology involved, and what such pilots actually do. While I understand the hesitance to keep a couple 2-member categories, the rareness of the profession would seem to offset the small size of the categories. - jc3706:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There is a difference between "commercial airline pilots" and "commercial pilots" (although the former is a subset of the latter), but my reason for suggesting the merge is not the small # of users in the category. Rather, it's the fact that there is no indication that the users in this category are actually commercial airline pilots; the userbox that categorises them into the category only says that they're certified commercial pilots. It's my opinion (and the opinion of the two users who commented on the category's talk page) that this category was created in error. – Black Falcon(Talk)06:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the difference I was missing (and apparently missed back in the previous discussion as well) was that the userbox says "aircraft" and not "airline". I was bold and edited the userbox. Feel free to speedy delete this airline cat as empty, with no prejudice for it's proper recreation later. - jc3707:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I say merge, I think have commercial pilots is simpler than airline. Also this name will be able to include all commercial pilots which in my opinion simplifies things greatly. --bobsmith31919:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepGentlemen (and ladies of course) I don't know if you are aware that a commercial pilot is not the same as an airline pilot, both hold different FAA airman certificates, licenses and qualifications. Airline pilots are those holding an ATL (Airline Transport License) while commercial pilots hold a CPL (Commercial Pilot License) the two categories are not one and the same. TopTopView18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we are. What you may not be aware of is that those in the category are there due to a userbox which says commercial "aircraft" not "airline". (I made the same mistake myself previously.) So, as it turns out this nom was essentially discussing editing a userbox. My apologies for any confusion. - jc3718:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. The easiest way to solve it and to avoid an array of mini-categories will be to put all pilots userboxes under Category:Wikipedian pilots will it not? We are all pilots and no one will feel de-categorized. To be pilot is common to all license categories.TopTopView18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play role-playing games
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians by access to sources
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Essentially any college student could claim membership in these categories per the local university library. As could anyone with a decent library in their neighborhood. It also occurs to me that anyone with internet access has access to all of these, and since you need internet access to edit Wikipedia, these just became potentially all-inclusive categories. - jc3703:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Despite the fact that this type of category is focused directly toward fostering collaboration, I have to agree that they have limited utility. (1) Anyone living near a university can have access to a university library (membership can generally be purchased by persons who are not affiliated with the university) and possibly to intranet sites as well. Certainly these categories include every university student, professor, and staff member with access to a computer. (2) Knowing that someone has access to academic journals is not particularly useful unless one knows to what journals they have access; also, Google Scholar provides a limited degree of access to academic journals to anyone with an internet connection. (3) Categorisation on the basis of access to conference proceedings is simply too broad; there are tens of thousands of local and international conferences across dozens of subjects. Black Falcon(Talk)04:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. I wish these had more potential, as the "Access to sources" categories are one of the few great uses of user categories. Sadly, these aren't helpful. ^demon[omg plz]12:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Deaf Culture Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. The existence of Category:WikiProject Deaf participants largely makes this one redundant; any collaborative potential that the nominated category has is likely captured by the WikiProject's category. Also, 40% of the users in the nominated category appear in the WikiProject category, so there is a significant degree of overlap. Finally, according to the article Deaf culture, Deaf Culture does "not automatically include all those who are clinically or legally deaf, nor do they exclude every hearing person". Thus, User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/User Deaf and Template:UserDeaf, which simply state "This user is deaf", should not categorise into this category. Removing these userboxes would leave only 4 actual users in the category. – Black Falcon(Talk)04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
While a userpage notice may be useful, it's not necessary to have a category identifying who the user prefers to have sex with (if any), or what gender a person prefers to identify with (if any). This would also include Heterosexual Wikipedians, Celibate Wikipedians, and various Paraphilial Wikipedian cats, if they existed. - jc3703:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for crying out loud. These categories have been up for deletion and kept every time, see Category talk:Gay Wikipedians for links to three failed CfDs for that category alone. I won't go into detail why this CfD is misguided, but I think it should be closed immediately on precedent alone. TAnthony05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I have. (One of those was a suggestion to merge/rename all to Homosexual Wikipedians, so it's somewhat off-topic. You may also wish to note that several categories which were "Keep" comparisons in those discussions, such as Wikipedians by Marital status, no longer exist either.) The shortest response is that Consensus can change. There is an ongoing current consensus that categories which are merely self-identification notices should not exist as categories. A userpage notice, such as a userbox, is enough to state whatever it is someone may wish to identify with. If someone wishes to help out with collaborating on LGBT issue articles, they can always check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. - jc3706:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of you deletionists can certainly nominate something enough times that the defenders finally get sick of defending, and "consensus can change" because it's too much trouble to rehash the same arguments. I am constantly baffled by the energy that goes into gutting things which some people find helpful or motivational, when your time could be better spent ACTUALLY EDITING AN ARTICLE. Seriously, what do you all actually care that editors are grouping themselves arbitrarily in userspace, why don't you just eliminate all userboxes and user categories and be done with it? If Category:Wikipedians in the United States is allowed to exist, these should as well. The fact that hundreds of editors have placed themselves in a category like Gay Wikipedians should state clearly that it is valuable. And I don't mean to single you out jc37, but for example you are in Category:Wikipedians who participate in the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week, which is completely ridiculous by comparison. Give me a break, people! TAnthony08:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Please pardon me if I ignore the histrionics in answering.) The only person on this page so far who has shown actually collaboration of User categories is Horologium (though in a different discussion). I can actually give a concrete example of how User categories are not collaborative in nature (besides the problems of votestacking). Awhile back, the User categories for the individual signs of the zodiac were deleted. The initial result of the discussion was merge to "Wikipedians interested in the zodiac". So another admin started making the change. There was a rather large hullaballoo from users who were angry that they were being placed in a collaborative cat, since they had no interest in the subject whatsoever, but were merely declaring something about themselves. So we actually went back to the discussion, and closed it as delete all, instead, since the users in question didn't want to be "interested in" or "collaborative about" the topic. And this involved quite a few "hundreds of users". By the way, "hundreds of users" is roughly equal to people who placed a userbox on their userpage to self-identify. Or for that matter placed the category on their page to use the link at the bottom of their userpage as a notice as well. If you want a notice, place a notice. Please don't use the category system for it. Oh, and incidentally, how can you suggest that a category which groups people by actual collaboration doesn't help with editing the encyclopedia? I think it's rather similar to the one I have about editor assistance (or administrator, for that matter). - jc3708:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete. I'm baffled why we must go through this every single time. There has been no evidence presented that shows these categories help collaboration. The LGBT Studies WikiProject does a very good job at coordinating efforts on these subjects, and these categories are only serving a social networking purpose. ^demon[omg plz]13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: WP:LGBT doesn't cover nearly all of those, and self-identification helps editors find other editors. A simple user-page notice can't accomplish that. And there's no evidence that having the categories hurts collaboration at all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This had nothing to do with the nom, but rather is a more general response, but since you ask, yes, I've seen many instances where User categories have been used to hurt collaboration. Many, many, many attempts to votestack a discussion, for example. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more ways in which categories may be used (both good and bad uses). - jc3719:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Comment Without going into the relative worth of these cats, I would suggest to the members of the LGBT WikiProject that you create a user category for members of the project. (This is one time where adding the category to the userbox is a good idea.) The deletion of such a category cannot be justified, and it appears that it is the only way that any of the groups under Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle will be able to group. All of the current subcategories of that group have been nominated for deletion at least twice (most of them three times) in the five months I have been active in UCfD discussions. I am not accusing anyone of bad faith, but the frequency that these categories (includes the Demoscener and Deaf Culture cats, and the Furry cat, which did not get nominated this cycle) are seen here in the discussion queue is a bit disturbing. Consensus can change, but not THAT quickly, and the past discussions have been fairly clear decisions to retain. I would suggest that the demoscener, deaf culture, and furry editors create WikiProjects and user cats for them as well, since the siege on the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle appears to be unresolvable. Horologiumt-c23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea, with one caveat: any WikiProject categories should be populated naturally (i.e. by people adding themselves to the category) rather by renaming any of these categories, the reason being that identification doesn't necessarily translate into interest, and certainly not into WikiProject membership. I realise that this isn't what you suggested, but I think it's an important point to note. – Black Falcon(Talk)00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Adding other people to a category is inappropriate. However, having a WikiProject userbox on one's page seems to be a pretty clear indicator that the user wants others to know about his interest in the topic, and while not all WikiProjects have categories, many do, and unless the project itself is deleted, there is no justification to eliminate the user cat for its members. The LGBT and Furry projects have userboxes, without associated user cats. The Deaf Wikiproject is related to Deaf Culture, but not identical in scope. (Perhaps Deaf Culture could be a task force within that project, or a daughter project.) I am not aware of a Demoscene Wikiproject at this time. Horologiumt-c00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (Responding to Horologium's first post.) As someone above mentioned, you might wish to go back and read over those discussions. If someone were to assess those discussions now, based on the categories we have now, they all would seem to be at least no consensus, and two of them appear to be rather clear deletes. However, none of that is why I nominated these. As I mentioned above, there is an emerging consensus at WP:CFD that using categories as a "notice" on the bottom of articles is a bad thing(tm). Categories are groupings. In general, if you want to note something about the topic of the article, add it to the article. Well a similar consensus has been emerging about User categories as of late. Statements of self-Identification should not be turned into categories. Look to the removal of the Wikipedians by birth, marital status, and so on. And incidentally, several of the sexuality cats have already been deleted, including Wikipedians by sexuality itself. So I don't think that it's safe to say that there has been an overall consensus to "keep". Anyway, as for Furry, I didn't nominate that one because after reading mountains of text of discussions, I just am not sure what recourse of those suggested is best. I was already leaning towards the WikiProject route myself. In response to the discussion above, the result of this discussion should have no bearing on whether a WikiProject-named cat may be added to a WikiProject userbox or not. So Be bold : ) - jc3701:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A category for members of WP:LGBT would be sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. LGBT-related articles already run a high risk of become battlegrounds for identity politics. Think about what reasons someone might have to look through something like Category:Lesbian Wikipedians. Either it's for idle curiosity or social networking purposes, in which case the category is frivolous, or it's looking for people likely to share a particular POV (because membership in these categories is based on a highly politicized identity, not an area of expertise). My userpage used to be in at least one of these categories, but I removed it quite a while ago because I just couldn't see what purpose it served. Wikipedia is not about me expressing my identity. It is about writing an encyclopedia. - AdelaMae(t - c - wpn)02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and can we please have a moratorium on doing this every couple of months?! Yeah, sure, consensus can change, but it's getting real annoying to see this keep coming up over and over for CfD until people get it deleted out of sheer out-stubborning everyone else. And, btw, next time you do it, can you make sure the links in the categories actually link to the deletion discussion in question? Kolindigo00:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that this category is redundant to the list of participants in WikiProject LGBT studies is inaccurate; not all of the WikiProject editors are gay, and not all gay Wikipedians participate in the WikiProject. Many of these categories serve the purpose user categories are intended for - to help likeminded Wikipedians who may share similar editing interests find one another easily and to reveal any editing biases they may bring to their work. There are a few on the list that I would support deleting because they don't seem to me to serve that purpose: :Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians, Category:Femme Wikipedians, and Category:Bear cub Wikipedians. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"to help likeminded Wikipedians who may share similar editing interests find one another easily and to reveal any editing biases they may bring to their work." - In other words, a userpage notice... - jc3712:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. Are you saying that isn't what user categories are for? If it isn't, then what are they for? And how would you use a userpage notice to find likeminded users, unless you just happened upon their userpages? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)18:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AdelaMae. If I were to question whether my own editing of an article were biased against one of these groups then I would probably ask someone that is in one of these categories for their input. As to the nomination rationale, I am in the Gay Wikipedian's category and that has nothing to do with who I prefer to have sex with or who I identify with (I do not identify with the gay community). If there was a Celebate Wikipedian's category then I could be under that category too (however I see no reason for a creation of that category, don't see why another editor would want to find a celebate editor, and probably wouldn't even include myself in that category as I wouldn't see it having any useful purpose). I'm leaning towards delete since the only time I'd want to find someone in one of these categories would be for input on editing something related to them. Since articles related to these categories would come under the scope of the LGBT Studies WikiProject (with the exception of Asexual Wikipedians), then a user category for members of that wikiproject should suffice. Using my own rationale for commenting delete, I probably shouldn't be in the Gay Wikipedians category as I have no interest in editing articles in that area. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count)13:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Besides the numerous other attempts at deletion, and failure of said attempts, it's only reasonable to assume that if these were deleted then every cat InsertYourOwnTitle Wikipedians would/should be deleted as well. I always find it amazing how the gay articles/cats/templates/lists always get targeted with the same arguments. You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again. -- ALLSTARECHO17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (Rather than to respond to each thread, I'll just attempt to comment here.) - In reading the above comments, I'm dismayed by how many commenters apparently aren't reading the nomination, or the responses. Reading things like "You should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing these up for deletion again." tells me that they haven't bothered to do the research to note the difference in the nominations or that several such categories have already been deleted, including the parent cat Category:Wikipedians by sexuality. This nom is due to a changing consensus about user categories in general. Wikipedian categories should not be used as userpage notices. And saying ILIKEIT doesn't seem helpful. Suggesting that the categories be used to find "like-minded individuals", is a suggestion to stack a bias. Notifying others that a user has a certain bias is fine as a userpage notice (such as a userbox). I wonder if I had made this nom to be: "Merge all to Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on sexuality and gender-related issues", would the members of the categories be upset because they weren't interested in collaborating, but wishing to state their preference... I know I'm repeating myself here, but apparently commenters aren't even bothering to read this discussion either. - jc3701:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. I personally have never been interested in displaying my sexuality on my userpage, but if others wish to disclose theirs that's fine with me. I am thus rather ambivalent about whether these categories remain, though I would like to make two points that: a) these categories were how we recruited many of the members for WP:LGBT in the first place and b)many of the people in these categories were not interested in joining us. To claim therefore that a WP:LGBT userbox is sufficient is demonstrably false. Essjay was gay but never joined WP:LGBT, many others are the same.
What I am bothered by is the fact that these categories are being put up for deletion every few months, and it seems to me both quite strange and a complete waste of time that people are so insistently trying to destroy these categories. Sure they make claims of "consensus can change" but we're talking over a period of a year or so here. These cats have been Afded four times within a year, and consensus has been no different every time. If the cats survive, I would appreciate if the deletionists could stop their assault for at least year before attempting it again, it's starting to get very annoying and distracts us from our goal - building an encyclopedia free to all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"consensus has been no different every time" - I don't believe that that is true. And there have been more than 4, it's just that some of the others resulted in something besides "no consensus/keep". And finally, I won't speak for anyone else, but I always find it amazing when it's suggested that I'm a "deletionist". : ) - jc3701:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...based on bias." - Did you even read the nomination? This has nothing to do with bias. This has nothing to do with whether the notice is useful, but whether the grouping is useful. Whether the grouping accurately shows people who wish to collaborate, or if it's just about having a talk page notice, and that feeling of warm fuzziness of being in a category, grouped with others. If it's the latter (similar to the zodiac cats) then these should absolutely be deleted. This is no different than the deletion of the food categories awhile back. Though several of us may like apples, that doesn't mean that a category is necessary to show it (even though there are more than enough related articles to presume collaborative use). This is about the intent of the categories in question. - jc3716:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Demoscener Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nudist Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. I don't see 'by organisation' categories as being particularly useful in the first place, since the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. However, in this case, the organisation(s) is/are not even specified. – Black Falcon(Talk)01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedian military people's inclusion criteria suggests that it's currently essentially a too-broad "interested in" category, even though the name is more suggestive of those who served in the military. It will need pruning, though I would not oppose deletion in order to "start over".
Merge/Rename per nom. - Personally I would not object to all of these categories being merged into "Wikipedians who served in the US Military", as their existance is redundant. One category for all active and prior service personnel, with sub-categories for the diverse branches, including Guard and Reserve, seems, to me, the best way to go. However, I'm not doctinaire on this. I would like to see other models, if they are available.--Lyricmac01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 200+ militaries in the world, each with one or more (usually more) services; add to that a past/present distinction which I think is important to maintain, and we have ca. 600-1000 categories. I see no utility in encouraging such a categorisation scheme, since the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any past or present off-wiki affiliations. Moreover, in many countries, military service is compulsory, so such categories would include a significant portion of those countries' populations. Overall, I'm not convinced that current or prior service in a military branch implies any sort of encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject or an above-average ability to contribute encyclopedic (i.e. sourced) content to military-related articles, especially in a way that does not breach the "no original research" policy. – Black Falcon(Talk)01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there should not be a category for past US miliary personnel? That was the reason behind my catch-all category "US Military Wikipedians". I am not certain I understand.--Lyricmac02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is knowledge of the military different whether you are currently enlisted, were enlisted 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? The category is going to be used for ex-members of the military regardless of the rename, obviously, so the name should probably reflect that. This isn't about an affiliation to a club. As I've been noticing as I've gone through contribution histories and user pages regarding this, those who served or are serving consider this a profession. And someone may categorise themselves under Wikipedian accountants, whether they are now working as a lawyer, or even if they are retired. There are other benefits to the rename I've suggested, but that's enough for now. (For one thing, I'm attempting to look towards future categorisation as well.) Incidentally, The U.S. cat shouldn't be the "catch-all" since it's country specific, and "military people" is way too broad a term (it could include civillian military contractors, for example). - jc3702:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary value I see in drawing a current/past distinction is that current members of the military could be aware of, or perhaps even produce, public domain images. If, by the way, my proposal does not gain consensus, then I prefer your suggested series of renames and merges to the status quo. Black Falcon(Talk)04:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's way more to collaborating on Wikipedia than image uploading, but I understand your thought. That said, I still think that no matter what we name them, they'll be used as the community chooses to, and we already see how that'll work... - jc3701:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although there is no absolute requirement to follow ISO 639, there is a strong consensus that language category names should match ISO 639 codes, supported by several dozen CFD discussions and the fact that all or nearly all language categories follow the ISO convention. To avoid confusion with als.wikipedia, we can place a {{for}} or {{otheruses}} notice on the category page. – Black Falcon(Talk)18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps this should be thought about in reverse. The whole point of using Iso codes is that they are an international standard. And I presume that what the ISO codes are have been argued out by others more "in the know" then us. Perhaps the better way to handle this would be for the language Wikipedias to follow this standard as well. - jc3721:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that when the Alemannic Wikipedia was started in 2003 I believe, the language had no ISO code (and in my opinion it still doesn't because the code gsw defies linguistic convention by using "Swiss German" as a cover term for Alemannic, when it usually is the other way around; Alemannic is the cover term while Swiss German refers to a socio-geographic variant of Alemannic). Moving the domain now while the code is still not established would be more trouble than it is worth; and in my opinion the bable template should follow the domain. --Chlämens23:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user language category on en.wikipedia needn't necessarily conform to the (apparently ambiguous) domain name of another language Wikipedia. – Black Falcon(Talk)00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the existance of a wikipedia in that language is a compelling reason to have the category conform to the domain since pretty much anyone active at als.wikipedia will expect to find their language template under als. --Chlämens01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: "We know we're using a non-standard abbreviation" and "We feel that the en-Wikipedia should default to out non-standard abbreviation instead of the ISO standard". Well, I feel that anyone using a non-standard anything should be prepared to have to deal with the standard, not the other way round. Sorry, but that arguement doesn't work. - jc3701:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes down to the question, what is more important on wikipedia, interwiki or ISO 639-3? There are no compelling reasons either way. To my knowledge, there is no precedence. The als.wikipedia.org was there before ISO 639-3. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏08:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that easy. There are two conventions that contradict in this case: The convention to use ISO 639-3 and the convention to use wikipedia domain (see Wikipedia:Babel). They normally overlap. They do not in this particular case. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per jc37 and Black Falcon. I was the one who originally proposed the switch to Albanian, since "als" is Tosk Albanian. I was not aware of the Alemannic Wikipedia when I made the nomination, but that does not change the fact that it is improperly named (as per the current meta requirements for new wikipedia projects. What happens if someone wants to start a Tosk Wikipedia? In any case, the error at als.wikipedia does not need to spill over to en.wikipedia as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horologium (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a Tosk Wikipedia, the Standard Albanian one, Standard Albanian is a Tosk dialect. The current meta requirement did not exist when the Alemannic Wikipedia was started over 5 years ago, and for the time being there is no alternative to als; even though we at the Alemannic Wikipedia are working on a request to Ethnologue for a correct (see my first post) code. When Alemannic is given a correct code we will happily move our domain, but until then we still need a category across the different wikipedias. The error of Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 need not to spill over to Wikipedia in general. So Strong Support. PS:I happen to speak both Alemannic and Tosk Albanian --Chlämens01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as per nom, and myself elsewhere, I've lost track. As conceded above, some were ignorant of the existence of als-Wikipedia when the decision, that involved only 5 editors or so, was made. This was as premature and uncoordinated as it can get. Albanian (sqip) users have sq to identify with (sq-Wiki and user-sq), and there is no excuse for sacrificing the well-established use of als for Alemannic purposes only to introduce an Albanian subcategory for Tosk which nobody called for yet, and which should be named tsk or similiar anyway. "als" relates to "Alemannische Sprache", and "Alsace", too.-- Mattheaddiscuß! O 01:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To get this straight: we at the Alemannic Wikipedia aren't great fans of the als code either, but when it was started in 2003 there was no ISO 639-3 so the people at meta came up with als. Not our fault, not ideal, but that's the way it is until we get a real ISO 639-3 code (should be with the next edition of Ethnologue). --Chlämens01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, the codes "ala", "ald", "ale", "alg", "all", "alm" and "als" would be good choices for Alemannic, but these are already given to others for whatever reason. Maybe we came too late into World history, only 2000 years ago Roman historians learned about Germanic peoples and then the Alamanni, and the couple of million speakers of Alemannic do barely outnumber e.g. the 18,000 Unangax which own "ale" (surely they are all happy about that). There are some ISO 639-2 codes like "gem Germanic (Other)" or "gsw" for "Alemannic Swiss German", but this is not good, we have at least three more countries to cover. How about "dea", seems free, fits nicely under Alpha-2 "de" for German? Same for "deb", for Baden.-- Mattheaddiscuß! O 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviation gsw stands for German Switzerland, that is, for Swiss German. However, only the Alemannic speakers of Switzerland identify themselves as speakers of Swiss German (and maybe the ones from Liechtenstein too). So it's unlikely that German, Austrian and French speakers of Alemannic would use a Swiss German userbox to identify their own speech. Now these are probably the majority of Alemannic speakers, even if we don't consider Swabian. The only reason why the ethnologue gives a larger number for speakers in Switzerland is that it fails to count speakers from Germany but counts only those from France and Austria.[3] (On the other hand, I think more likely that speakers of Walser dialects would identify themselves as Swiss German speakers.) Now you could ask, how come an ISO standard has so many flaws? The reason is, I think, that it's directly based on the ethnologue, and the ethnologue itself admits with respect to varieties of German: "Our present treatment in this edition is incomplete."[4]
And? Is anything going to get resolved now?
In light of the fact that:
There is a wikimedia project under the code als.
No one arguing for repurposing has proposed any alternative for the Alemannic category.
There was no awareness that an Alemannic Wikipedia existed when this proposal was made.
The Alemannic Wikipedia existed before the ISO 639-3 standard did.
ISO 639-3 is not complete for this language family as noted by its own creators.
All users wanting to add a bable template for Alemannic will search for als.
That there is no other case as far as I know of a wikimedia project under a non-standard code, and thus no precedent would be set.
And most of all:
That Tosk Albanian is already covered by the Standard Albanian Wikipedia and template (Standard Albanian = Standard Tosk, as opposed to Gheg Albanian, whose standard language was abandoned in the late 70's).
I argue that the existence of the Alemannic Wikipedia is more important than the code for Tosk Albanian which is already covered by sq, and that this justifies an exception to the rule. --Chlämens16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: just in case someone is waiting for me.... I want to let users know that I will not be closing this discussion. I feel that the decision requires not just an assessment of consensus but also a stronger language background or knowledge than I possess. As such, I will leave the close of this discussion to any other admin who feels qualified (by their standards, not mine) to do so. --After Midnight000119:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was unfortunate to choose "als" for "Alsatian". Sure, there was no ISO code, but seeing that, something should have been chosen that doesn't collide with ISO 639 (the Alemannic Wikipedia is a strange animal anyway. I tried to contribute, but I gave up, because the babel of different dialects makes the normal editing process almost impossible). Since we find ourselves in this mess, the question is, will it be possible to move als-wiki? The best move target would probably be gsw:, since SIL gives "Alternate names: Alemannisch" for this code. If the Swabians refuse to edit under "gsw", the only half ISO compatible solution would be something along the lines of "gem-ala" or "gem-als" (but seeing that gsw and swg speakers today edit under a made-up code for Alsatian, I see nothing that would speak against a move to gsw). Discussion of this would really belong on meta. Concerning the user categories, I wouldn't touch them until the subdomain question is resolved, because doing so might mean that you'll just have to move them around twice. --dab(𒁳)08:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur. I understand that "wouldn't touch" in this case seems to mean 'return to status quo ante', since the user categories already have been touched. I don't think that gsw would enjoy equal acceptance as als. The reason why als was easily accepted for all Alemannic varieties, not only Alsatian, is that it could easily be reinterpreted as alemannische Sprache, whereas gsw clearly connotes 'Switzerland'. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Frontier
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panentheist Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. In particular, as Justanother mentioned, this category could be particularly useful in categorizing other user categories. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you that Panentheism is a general belief that corresponds to many religions. However, I still characterize that belief as a religion unto itself. As a close analog, consider Atheism. There are many Atheistic religions, all of which hold the belief that there is no such animal as a deity. Even though several (many?) religions hold that belief, Atheism is considered to be a religion unto itself. As a looser analog, consider the many sects of Christianity. Lutheranism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism, and Branch Davidianism are religions in their own right, but also obviously part of Christianity. Also, please note that I specifically suggested that this be used as a container category for more specific Panentheistic religions. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A singular belief is a belief. A group of beliefs (and questions about those beliefs) is a philosophy. "Religion refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction." So no, atheism (and any other -theism) isn't a religion. - jc3715:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Age Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
"This page contains Wikipedians who have identified themselves (at least on Wikipedia) as being explorers of New age philosophy, whatever that means to each of them."
per New Age, this is a "broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture".
Delete per jc37 and and Justanother. The disclaimer in the category description – "whatever that means to each of them" – is an indicator of excessive vagueness. – Black Falcon(Talk)19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. whatever that means to each of them. So essentially, everyone in this category could be there for a different reason? Is that helpful? --Kbdank7118:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you that New Ageism is a general concept that corresponds to many religions. However, I still characterize that concept as a religion unto itself. As an appropriate analog, consider the many sects of Christianity. Lutheranism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism, and Branch Davidianism are religions in their own right, but also obviously part of Christianity. As to the general assertion that the description "New Age" is too vague, please keep in mind that one of the key components which characterize New Age belief is personal exploration and expression. The "whatever that means to each of them" comment is there to make that clear to those who are not familiar with that ideology and cannot be bothered to read the article. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me08:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bokononist Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, as per nom. Reading the category description convinced me that it is in the same category as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Cthulhu, three more fake religions that were excommunicated from the user categories in July/August. The fact that there is only a single member to the group is icing on the cake. Horologiumt-c16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CotSG user category was also deleted in the same nomination, but it was restored at DRV, along with Discordianism. This category did not exist at that time, or it would have been included in the nomination. Horologiumt-c19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in the August 2 discussion. Partly per Horologium as well; there must surely be thousands of religious belief systems ... subcategorising every single one is unlikely to be useful (well, less so than categorising users on the basis of religion in the first place). – Black Falcon(Talk)19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per many previous discussions. Adherents of a particular religion are likely to know more about that religion and related resources, and are therefore able to collaborate on articles about that religion and related subjects. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me06:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user specifically used the Wikipedian categories to apparently votestack a previous category discussion. Though, to be fair, he apologised for his actions afterwards. It does, however seem to colour the suggestion of collaboration. (Multi-pasting a single comment to multiple noms is one of the drawbacks of separate listings.) - jc3707:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that adherents of a religion, particularly a fictional one or one with a fictional origin, whichever is the case here, are more likely to know about "related resources" regarding the religion? I think that claim could easily be made for theologians, regardless of religious affiliation, but I don't see how mere self-identification implies any sort of knowledge of reliable sources. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obvious circular logic, but it has value: I claim that adherents of a particular religion are more likely to know about that religion and related resources because I expect people to know what they believe. I expect people who claim to be Buddhist to know more about Buddhism than I would expect of the average Christian. I expect people who claim to be Scientologists to know more about Xenu than I would expect of Buddhists. I expect people who claim to be Jimbologists to know more about their deity than Scientologists would. Etcetera. From that expectation, and the general observation that most Wikipedians are also intelligent and literate, I expect that most Wikipedians who assert adherence to a particular ideology will be more aware of the resources regarding that ideology than nonadherents. As for the complaint about self-identification, I do not find it reasonable to expect that Wikipedians provide credentials regarding ... well ... anything. Think about it. We don't ask that editors who claim to know Esperanto take a placement test to demonstrate their level of literacy. Nobody asks members of any profession to provide proof of employment. Wikipedia, at every conceivable level, works on the honor system. With regard to complaints of a fictional origin for this particular religion: most religions have a strong fictional aspect. Creation stories are characteristic of many religions. Most use parables, allegories, and koans to illustrate particular elements of ideology. The fact that a religion acknowledges that its fictional elements are, in fact, fictional, makes the religion no less valid. Wow, that was a great wall of text. I wonder if anybody is still reading. — Bigwyrmwatch mewake me09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedian IATSE Stagehands
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Fraternal organisations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete all per nom. Many of the same arguments that led to the deletion of the fraternity and sorority categories (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30) apply. The ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. Also, in most or all cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. – Black Falcon(Talk)15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Religion and other interest userboxes, by the same rationale, do not foster collaboration, either, but it does help to be able to find like-minded people with similar encyclopedic interests, and that is the case here. However, ther is conflation, because these are differnt types of organizations, and I wouldn't necessarily put them all together. MSJapan21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between userboxes that do not foster collaboration (consensus is that they are acceptable as long as they are in userspace) and categories that do not foster collaboration (consensus is that they should be deleted). I don't think your comparison to "interest" categories is entirely accurate, since interest categories indicate actual interest in a subject, whereas these categories merely indicate membership in an organisation (they don't actually say anything about "similar ... interests"). – Black Falcon(Talk)00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in the Hospitality Club
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Student organisations
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete all per nom. Many of the same arguments that led to the deletion of the fraternity and sorority categories (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#July 30) apply. The ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. Also, in most or all cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. – Black Falcon(Talk)15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Save the Plants
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete both per nom. These are single-user categories with relatively limited potential for growth (as best I can tell, both organisations are relatively small and local). Also, in both cases, any collaboration would be limited to one article only and could just as well be carried out on the main article's talk page. Most importantly, the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations – Black Falcon(Talk)16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
IQ org categories
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete all per nom. As categories that express an organisational affiliation, they are not particularly useful, since the ability to improve articles is what counts, not any off-wiki affiliations. As a category of smart people, it's potential usefulness is invalidated by WP:NOR and WP:V. Content should be supported by reliable sources and a reliable source found and added by someone with an IQ of 160 is no better or worse than one found and added by someone with an IQ of 80. – Black Falcon(Talk)16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians in Theta Chi
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:National Honor Society Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedians by mental and physiological condition and subcats
parent cats re-listed above....
Category:Depressive Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete for the following reasons. (1) As pointed out by the nom, the category is not well-defined. (2) The category's membership is potentially very large; it's telling that depression is considered the common cold of psychological conditions. (3) Merely having a condition, especially one as common as depression, implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. (4) The category could be exploited by trolls. After all, if the goal is to harm editors or the project, who better to harass than people who are already feeling down? I realise that the userbox could be exploited to this end as well, but the category just makes it too easy, without providing any substantial value in return. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dysthymic Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hypochondriac wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paranoid Wikipedians
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with borderline personality disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with general anxiety disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with multiple personality disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with post-traumatic stress disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with Social Anxiety Disorder
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with selective mutism
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with selective mutism - Probably the least useful of the medical condition categories: a social anxiety disorder in which a person who is normally capable of speech is unable to speak in given situations. - Not being able to talk has little to do with editing Wikipedia. - A userbox notice may be helpful, but no need for the category. - jc3700:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with Tourette syndrome
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with Narcolepsy
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians with breast cancer
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, go ahead and delete as the category survived two previous attempts and a challenge. The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win. Mikebar05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather think your statement would be more of a personal slight against me because I surrender on the basis of an argument that was lacking sufficient research. What is that phrase? Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Keeping or eliminating the category will make little difference in the fate of Wikipedia or the world. Mikebar05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the last discussion, and I stand by the comments I made then. As JC pointed out, there are two of you in the category since June. I skimmed through the other user's contribs. [5] In the last thousand edits, going back one year, the vast majority of edits were about Colombia and Colombia-related articles. Not cancer. How has this category helped exactly? --Kbdank7118:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. The contents of this category have changed significantly since the debate began. I suggest a restart without prejudice. After Midnight000119:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, why is it populated almost entirely by location categories? Moreover, "Caribbean" is not exactly an ethnicity, but a regional affiliation. Black Falcon(Talk)16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a Category for Wikipedians who are resident in the Caribbean, however this category should remain as is for Wikipedians who identify with or are affiliated with the Caribbean but who are not currently resident there.--Vivenot16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I will re-link all the geographical sub-categories for Wikipedians from the various Caribbean nations to the new Wikipedians in the Caribbean category. I hope this addresses the issue of the category being populated mostly by location sub-categories.--Vivenot16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've gone through the user pages. What a mess. There are several US Virgin Islands templates which populate this, plus several users who "affiliate" with the Jamaica, or are "from" Jamaica. And after going through a few other similar categories, I wonder if maybe the whole ethnicity set of subcats should be deleted per "A userpage notice, such as a userbox may be useful, but the category is not needed..." - jc3716:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename' and 'merge' are essentially the same. I don't see how merging this category implies that all ethnicity and nationality categories should be deleted, given the fact that "Caribbean" is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality, especially when it doesn't refer to minorities outside of the region. Also, you stated above that the criterion for inclusion in this category is identification or affiliation with the Caribbean; that is much too vague to serve as a basis for useful categorisation. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the subcats only (already merged, I see) and remove the category from the individual userpages. Given the vague inclusion criterion of 'affiliation' with the Caribbean, it's better to delete the category and let the users recategorise themselves as necessary and appropriate. – Black Falcon(Talk)17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For someone to categorise themselves as being Caribbean is no less vague that categorising themselves as Asian or African, neither of which are either nationalities or ethnicities. The Caribbean is a distinct region - if the Caribbean Wikipedian category is to be deleted then so should these other user categories. --Vivenot17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a useful analogy (like Vivenot made) and mindlessly citing a (rather flawed) guideline. "Caribbean" isn't terribly vague - it's a useful, workable, realistic category, especially out in the diaspora (you know, just the people this renaming would exclude). Guettarda06:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Virgin Islands, and Jamaican Wikipedians have been recatted. What's left in the cat are a few who at one time were from a Carribean island (each of which doesn't currently have a cat), someone from the US state of Georgia, and someone from the South American mainland country of Guyana. I'm leaning towards deletion. Though comments are welcome. - jc3717:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, exactly - all these categories have been renamed. So I can't honestly put myself in Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago, now there's a move to tell me I can't call myself a Caribbean Wikipedian either. So I suppose I'm only allowed to call myself an Okie, despite the fact that I feel almost no connection to the state? Guettarda06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can call yourself anything you like, but the userpage is the best place for self-identification that has little to do with encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon(Talk)18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is only somewhat related to this discussion, but in the past it has been discussed to merge the ethnic and location cats to the "Wikipedians from..." formula. Perhaps that discussion should be revisited. (I would support such a nom at this time.) - jc3718:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember at least two discussion for "Wikipedians from..." categories that I personally nominated that ended in deletion. I do not think that place of origin (unlike place of residence) is useful information in terms of encyclopedic collaboration. I think merging the ethnic and location categories would just undermine the varying levels of usefulness that they both possess. – Black Falcon(Talk)18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely - place of origin is a vital and encyclopedic way of classifying Wikipedians as well as providing useful background as to the Wikipedian's social cultural perspective and area of expertise.--Vivenot19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not the goal of Wikipedia to classify its editors. The purpose of user categories is to promote collaboration, not to categorise users for the sake of categorisation itself. As far as "providing useful background as to the Wikipedian's social cultural perspective and area of expertise", that is accomplished via userpage content, including userboxes. Categories are useful only if there's a reason for someone to look through a category of Wikipedians of a certain type. – Black Falcon(Talk)19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of user categories (approximately 4000 by my count), but user categorisation is not itself an end. The foremost goal of Wikipedia is to produce high-quality articles: user categories that are thought to foster encyclopedic collaboration (such as most subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by language and Category:Wikipedians by interest) are retained; those that serve no such purpose, or that only exist to complement user profiles, are routinely deleted. You can get an idea of the approximate number of user categories deleted or merged each month by looking at the UCFD archives. – Black Falcon(Talk)21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I did not say that user categorisation is an end in itself. I agree that the subcategories you mention are useful in fostering collaboration and that there are many user categories which should be deleted as they do not help in achieving this. However, a Wikipedian's country or region of origin is as useful a characteristic for fostering collaboration as is current location, language or interest. --Vivenot21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories that provide information on the location of users are useful when it comes to procuring free/public domain images of certain areas (buildings, natural features, people, and so on). Categories that provide information on the language skills of users are useful when it comes to translating foreign-language sources and/or articles. Categories that provide information regarding users' interests are useful because they identify which users are interested in editing certain articles. What purpose is served by place of origin categories that is not served just as well or better by location, language, or interest categories? Black Falcon(Talk)21:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that people travel. Classifying Wikipedians by both their current residency as well as their origin covers the many expatriates in the world. For example: a student who has spent their whole life growing up in one country but who has gone to study in another country will no doubt know more about their home country than a new immigrant to that country. It should be possible to reflect this in their user categorisation. --Vivenot22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You really think that there's no difference between someone writing about a topic they know about, and someone writing about a topic they're ignorant of? Or when someone adds some uncited information, you don't think it's helpful to be able to differentiate between something that's relevant (and thus should be sourced, or at least {{fact}}-tagged), and something that is actually false (and is thus vandalism that needs to be removed immediately)? Guettarda06:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Caribbean" is a broad identity; I doubt the informal fact-checking to which you refer would prove useful in such cases. More specialised categories (by ethnicity/nationality or by location) would do just as well, or even better. Black Falcon(Talk)18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it is an ethnicity category, I think it is a location category. Most of the Caribbean Wikipedians that I know (not a big sample I admit) come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. I am not sure what ethnic Caribbean would be anyhow; I think the implication is that it would be black Caribbean, but native Amerindian Caribbeans, and Caribbean people who are of European or East Indian descent (of whom there are many) may well object strongly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it is not a homogenous ethnic group. There should be location category not only for current location/residence but also for country/region of origin.--Vivenot21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2). Whilst I think there are compelling reasons for grouping together Caribbean Wikipedians into supranational groups (common culture, common heritage, single unified legal system, single unified university, single unified cricket team, most countries too small individually to have any regional significance), none of those arguments strike me as a good reason not to conform the naming of the group to Wikipedians [in/from] the Caribbean for consistency. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legis, there is already a Wikipedians in the Caribbean category. There is a category for Wikipedians from the Caribbean Community. What about merging this latter category with Caribbean Wikipedians and renaming it as Wikipedians from the Caribbean? --Vivenot21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Wikipedians from..." format goes against current convention and past precedent (see here, for isntance). More importantly, the various discussions about such categories have not produced an explanation for why they are useful. When I asked my question above, I was not merely trying to rebut your argument; I am genuinely interested in whether "origin" categories have some sort of purpose beyond complementing user profiles. – Black Falcon(Talk)22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all nation-states in the "Caribbean" are in the "Caribbean Community" i.e. CARICOM. P.S. Caribbean people should consider leaving Wikipedia and forming a better Wiki somewhere else. That's the same thing I think the Cuba group had done at one point since there's soo many Non-Cubans breaking up the flow of the editing such as this. CaribDigita23:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about Caricom, CaribDigita. However, I'm just trying to find a compromise - hopefully within Wikipedia if possible (Don't give up just yet!).--Vivenot23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose - a remarkably high proportion of Caribbean people live outside of the Caribbean, but identify substantially with the region and our countries of origin. In the 1990 census, there were more than 100,000 Trinidadian-born people in the US (that from a country with 1.3 million people). There are comparable numbers of Trinidadian-born people in Canada and the UK. And Trinidad has historically had lower rates of emigration than other Caribbean countries. A "Caribbean" identity is actually strongest among diasporan Caribbean people. Ethnic groups are categorised on the basis of self-identification. So why should those of us who happen to live outside of the Caribbean be excluded from our primary category of self-identification to meet someone's arbitrary desire for uniformity? Guettarda06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's anyone's goal to try to impose a certain identity on you or anyone else. However, the purpose of user categories is not self-identification for the sake of self-identification alone. The principles that Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia and not a MySpace-type user profile site, which are relaxed in the user namespace but still apply to all pages (including pages in the category namespace), suggest that user categories should be useful to the encyclopedia (by fostering encyclopedic collaboration). There are literally thousands of regions across the world, many of which result merely from slight differences in definitions, and even more identities; they cannot and should not all be reasonably accomodated here (not in small part because too much information can be overwhelming). Black Falcon(Talk)18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not arguing that Wikipedia should be a social networking site. What we are saying, however, is that allowing Wikipedians to classify themselves by their national, regional or ethnic identity is a useful encyclopedic tool alongside where the Wikipedian currently resides and what language(s) they speak. I agree there are many frivolous user categories which should be controlled, but this clearly is not one of them and therefore this category should be kept.--Vivenot09:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this does not cover the whole picture regarding the relationship between Wikipedians and countries or regions. Wikipedians may be originally from one country or region but resident in another but they may be interested in another region altogether. E.g. a person from Trinidad who is resident in the USA but who is interested in India.--Vivenot06:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but (for the reasons you state), we shouldn't assume any connection between interest and place of residence, place of origin, or language, regardless of how complete or incomplete the picture is. Interest should be handled by interest categories (such as Category:Wikipedians interested in the Caribbean), translation by language categories, and images by location categories (such as Category:Wikipedians in the Caribbean)? What does that leave for "place of origin" categories? What is their unique contribution? To me, that is the crux of the issue, and I don't think they add anything that is not already provided by the three other category types. Black Falcon(Talk)07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
