Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/August 2008

< July 2008	September 2008 >

August 31[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who published book[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who published book

At the very least it needs a rename. - jc37 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorisation of users on this basis does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's advocate: It might lend itself to identifying POV pushers. I'd go further but WP:AGF bars me. ~~Track and monitor~~Delete. Hiding T 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are they book publishers or authors? o.O -- Ned Scott 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it needs a rename - there's only 1 user in there, so we don't have *Wikipedian* without an s categories AFAIK. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abiguity and grammar issues. VegaDark (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 25[edit]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep in the absence of a general consensus to delete old sockpuppets categories. Incidentally, most Wikipedian sockpuppets of... categories are populated by various sockpuppetry templates that lack date parameters. While it is possible to modify the templates so that categories are placed in CAT:TEMP (or a similar location) after a certain period of time—{{deprecated}} is one template that performs a similar function—it should be done through broader discussion and consensus regarding all similar categories, rather than just this one. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing here per MfD request by User:Pleasedeletethepage (probably the same user). What do we do with categories for the sockpuppets of users who were banned two years ago? I am neutral. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — there are 1,387 categories like this in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, and I'm sure some of them are from a couple years ago. Although, I might like to see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers merged into two categories: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets (for proven sockpuppeteers) and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets (for suspected sockpuppeteers). Unless there is a reason we have separate categories. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems vaguely familiar. I don't have time atm (though I may later), but would someone do a bit pf research about this? Seems to me that there was an issue here in the past. - jc37 23:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JarlaxleArtemis. - jc37 09:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Im going to lean to keep this as a historical archive and anyone who might be interested in this for evidence through the userpage for whatever reason, even though its at Long term abuse. In fact, the nom user wants to delete the userpage as well , am i correct in that? This is unlike Grawp puppets and should be treated differently Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct; the nomination for the user page is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JarlaxleArtemis. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stone-age, and now utterly irrelevant to the project. There has been some speculation of late that this may be the original account of the Grawp vandal, but how and ever - Alison ^❤ 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless there's some personal information that's of concern, I think that the userpage could be useful for future issues, if they present themselves. (Else why do we even have such templates and such?) - jc37 09:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Nope, it most definitely is the original account of a known cross-wiki vandal and though I played part of getting rid of the other sock, I disagree with removing this, unlike his other collection, this is NOT A SHRINE so I don't see any need for deleting this..--Comet styles 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's some utility in keeping categories and LTA-type pages about long-departed problem users. Any user could return, no matter how long they've been gone. Plus, I'm not sure WP:DENY applies in cases where the user isn't around to get the paltry "recognition" of a sockpuppet category. And if the Grawp vandal does indeed turn out to be JA, this page could become a valuable resource. szyslak (t) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless. Please keep saying it is useful, but don't explain how. If abuse returns, block. Who cares about the history.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares about history? Past behavior is pretty much the only thing we can base a block on; we certainly can't guess their future actions. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 21[edit]

Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Wizardman 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls

~~:Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls who are active~~ G7'd - no longer needed. –xeno (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the concern is that the intent of the userbox which mostly populates this category does not convey a sense of "immediacy", which those who wish to nominate Wikipedians would like it to have. And since there does seem to be a disparity between the name/intent of the category and the name/intent of the userbox, I suggest that we support the category be depopulated from the userbox (both transcluded and subst). If necessary, the category could be depopulated in general, so that we can "start over" in its intent and usage.

After some reflection, while I had previously suggested that perhaps a separate cat might be created for the existing userbox, I'm not suggesting that here now because I don't believe that there would be a purpose (collaborative or otherwise useful) to having such a grouping for those who wish for something "someday". (Compare to those who wish to have a car "someday".) - jc37 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate as nominator. - jc37 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggeste dusing this as the basis for a list that a bot would maintain based on category membership at the village pump, so if that idea floats, then keep. I think adding a userbox is more intuitive than adding yourself to a list, so the two prong approach, whilst on the face impractical, may be in thi case a good idea. Although, could a bot simply patrol instances of a userbox on user pages? I don't know how that works with subst userboxes, it could be done by inserting some code into the userbox, I'm sure, the way bots know which pages to archive. I'll let brainy people run with the idea. Hiding T 11:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, as I understand it, isn't that a userbox is being used, it's that the specific userbox isn't useful for the intent of the category. (And further, that the category hasn't in the past been clear enough.) So if this category is repurposed (though not renamed), then it should be emptied/depopulated and we start over. - jc37 11:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree on what the problem is. But I don't think the solution can be provided by any sort of rename, and the category can aid the purpose it is intended to via providing information for a bot to sort into a list. It's a sort of hack, granted, but it's a hack that can aid Wikipedia and therefore should be a good thing. If the hack can be made to work, and make this category achieve its goal via a list, I support keeping the category. Hiding T 12:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The major issue here is that the category is filled with people who put this userbox on their page way back in 2006 and have sinced stopped editing. At the village pump, a suggestion was made to simply add a paramater "nocat" to decategorize inactive users thus the category would still serve some purpose for those who may wish to evaluate active hopefuls and consider nominating them for adminship. There was resistance to this so other options were proposed, splitting into the category "who are active" or "who are inactive". This was a suggested compromise, but I think the original idea to simply depopulate inactive users is the best way to solve this problem without having to create additional categories by activity. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the latest discussion on the VP-proposals page where the category is proposed to be used by a bot that would create a list including the date of each user's last edit (sorted by date). I happen to have nearly all the required code to do this just lying around. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original category :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, delete the one I created :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls who are active per G7 as it's unnecessary with the new idea just to use it to create a sortable list with last edit dates. –xeno (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with that, keep it to populate a list with those users. So Why 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creating the list with last edit dates is a good idea as a compromise, but then the category would still be pretty useless, which was what started the discussion in the first place. Removing inactive users from the category would help, but leaving them in does not help the category to be useful, and that does not help the project. Removing inactive users from this category isn't unfairly ranking users, it's helping the category help the project, and that's the purpose of user categories. WODUP 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried not to be dumb; it didn't work. Need the category for the bot to populate the list. Got it. WODUP 04:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've deleted the "who are active" category per G7 and now we can just move ahead with the listify'ing idea. UCFD can be closed? –xeno (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category has the potential to be very useful. - Icewedge (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, both for category and userbox. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we get a hidden date added to the userbox? Just as we have a bot that goes through and adds dates to {{unref}} tags and whatnot, it could be helpful to have this category split up into subcategories such as "Administrator hopefuls in 2006", "Administrator hopefuls in 2007", etc. Then if a candidate is active, they can update the date on their own userbox. If inactive, the box naturally degrades into a category that we don't need to worry about. --El on ka 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea!

However, I'm thinking that that still means that the category should be depopulated so that we can "start over". - jc37 05:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is the decision than do not depopulate until the bot makes its run to create an initial list. Alternatively, rather than depopulating, we could rename the category to Administrator hopefuls in 2008 and prior and start with a new subcategories in 2009. –xeno (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If a list is created and regularly updated with last edit dates from the hopefuls category, why do we need categories by year? WODUP 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate per nom. Orderinchaos 12:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now used to create Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. So Why 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 15[edit]

Category:User Wiki-0[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category, which have an extensive history of being deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's going to be reeeeaaaallly hard for someone to add themselves to this category if they don't "know any of editing skills at all", as the userbox puts it. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/Ned Scott. Also delete the userbox, as it is designed to be unused: a person who has absolutely no editing skills will not be able to add the userbox to his/her user page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in the discussion below about the other wiki skill categories, also this category is a paradox as it would likely take some wikiskill to even add this category or the userbox that produces it. - Icewedge (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Wiki skill" categories[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by editing skill" series of categories. "This user knows basic editing skills", "This user knows adequate editing skills", and "This user knows all editing skills, and is willing to help beginners". 2 of the 3 have no users in them (populated solely by template) and overall useless to categorize since "basic" and "adequate" are subjective, and doubtful many users know all editing skills. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad. I would not oppose more specific categories, such as our existing ones for templates, Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (subjective, too broad). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - jc37 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there is no benefit of organizing users by 'wiki skill', if a users wanted to find some knowledgeable about WP it would be easier just to go to the help desk or some other help forum. - Icewedge (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play Chip's Challenge[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by video game" category, which have an extensive history of deletion. See Chip's Challenge. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, and as a single-article category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 11[edit]

Category:Wikipedian pigeon fanciers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Hiding T 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent. - jc37 08:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful cat for finding potential editors to join the domestic pigeon taskforce. Inclusionist Wikipedians? (that could make a CfD) What a joke this place is.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A "pigeon fancier" is apparently not just someone who likes pigeons, but someone who breeds them. I think that this implies a certain level of potentially useful knowledge on the subject of pigeons. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took a bit of link surfing to find, but according to Animal fancy, this is applied to hobbyists, not professionals. ("Fancy" would apparently seem to be the long form of "fan".) This would seem to be barely a step above pet lovers. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah link surfing now that could become a craze! Once again a Wikipedian armchair expert on everything has decided (all by their lonesome) that by virtue of what they read on another Wikipedia article (OMG it must be true!) that fanciers can only be hobbyists and not professionals? Not experts by your reasoning either I gather? Love the way you use such amazing feats of deduction such as "This would seem to be". Trust me though on this. Some "pet lovers" are definitely experts in their field. I still reckon we should CfD Inclusionist Wikipedians though. Mainly because of the outrageously funny fact of you being in it. Oh my sides are splitting.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps as "outrageously funny" as someone making accusations about an editor without doing more thorough research? Though perhaps more akin to irony, actually, I think.

Incidentally, nothing in your comments above have changed my perspective. For one thing, even if "some" pet lovers are indeed experts in their field (and I do not dispute that), that doesn't mean that all are. And more to our current situation, that doesn't necessarily mean that all who are in the category are. And further, based on the name of the category, there is no reason to believe that they are, nor that they should be required to be, to categorise themselves as such. I would be more than happy to discuss a cat concerning "professionals" in regards to pigeons. But this isn't it.

That said, I would welcome verifiable reliable sources supporting your belief. - jc37 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you? Yeah I did say "Some" and I had known that doesn't mean "all" are. "more akin to irony"? Here's irony. My honest opinion is that the cat is useful. You may never agree that it is but that's your right to have that opinion. I'm happy to let the community consensus here decide if the cat stays or goes. Discuss a cat concerning professionals? Well lets wait and see if this cats survives the CfD first. If it goes I'll create another perhaps more suitable cat?--Sting Buzz Me... 12:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also find it "humourous" (or ironic) that right after attempting to berate another Wikipedian about merely reading a wikipedia article (which wasn't true, but be that as it may), you then merely link to irony?

And incidentally, the "irony" is that you seem to be doing the exact things which you're attempting to accuse me of, and have been in your last few posts. The civility and good faith of which could be considered questionable.

"Yeah I did say "Some" and I had known that doesn't mean "all" are." - Well, that alone kills the category. Inaccuracy is a bad thing in categorisation. - jc37 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Black Falcon. Does not appear to be on the same level as "Wikipedian with a dog or fish". -- Ned Scott 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that there is a related article to this, Pigeon keeping. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. While some people know what a "fancier" is, others do not and might become a bit confused over the issue. Maybe name it to something like Wikipedians interested in Pidgeons, or something around that line. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - perhaps a rename to Wikipedians who breed pigeons? No other opinion. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian storywriters[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates how problematic Category:Wikipedian writers (nomination directly below) is. So apparently this cat was created to be "more specific". Except that while there may be a term for storyteller, there isn't one for storywriter. This is a question of being an author. I might suggest a rename to substitute "authors", but I'm not certain we wouldn't have the same problem below of vagueness. So, while no prejudice against the creation of a "authors" cat, not necessarily supporting its creation (if it were listed here, for example). - jc37 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No article means no way this can facilitate collaboration, plus the fact that most people are required to write stories at some point during schooling, so this is potentially all-inclusive...Unless this is supposed to be a profession category? That brings us back to the fact there is no article, VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and VegaDark. There's no way to make sense of this category: it is supposed to be a category for storywriters (professional? amateur? school-age?), but is populated primarily by a userbox that states: "This user writes books." Renaming to Wikipedian authors would probably take care of the miscategorisation problem, but it would only worsen the problem of generality. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian writers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: depopulate and create more specific categories. Might I suggest "Wikipedians who are professional writers" as a more descriptive category. –xeno (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vague cat that is rather all-encompassing (as can be seen by the category membership). - jc37 08:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. - jc37 08:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename as a profession/skill category. We probably should make it clear that this is meant for editors who actually make a living and/or are particularly skilled at writing, rather than just being interested in writing as a hobby, etc. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but agree with Ned. It should be for people who actually write books or short stories or are particularly skilled. --Bduke (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The best way I know how would be to rename the cat. However by doing so, we will be essentially repurposing the cat. And when dealing with a category this large, I don't think we can presume that everyone within are professionals. (Several userboxes which populate the cat clearly do not concern professionals, and since are subst-ed, this will require more than a bit of clean-up at the very least.) The best way (that I know) is to delete/depopulate and start over with a new cat with a more accurate name and inclusion criteria. This prevents accidental miscategorisation. I think it's better to start over, than to, by keeping, make inaccurate statements about an editor that the editor never intended. Though I obviously welcome other ideas. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ned that a category of professional writers could be quite useful, so I support jc37's proposal. I think Category:Wikipedian professional writers could work as a title for the new category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian cavers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Caves which is inactive, and Caving the single article for this single article cat. - jc37 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Caving is in Category:Caving, a category that has 18 articles in it directly and 8 subcategories. There is plenty of scope for collaboration. The Project may be inactive or not, but that should not affect this discussion. --Bduke (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I knew about the concept of spelunking before nominating, but I missed the category of related articles completely. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian crystallographers[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Head count would suggest keep, but there is useful discussion of a rename below, which if pursued more vigorously may lead to a more consensual outcome, but at present discussion has dried. I suggest it might be worth returning with a suitable rename proposal. Hiding T 10:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Crystallography and (based on the presumed intent of the category per its intro) X-ray crystallography.

First, at the very least this needs a more specific rename per the general article.

Second, following the rename, this would presumably become a single-article cat.

Note also that every member is as a result of this userbox. - jc37 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep crystallographer are helpful in more than just crystallography. Keep as a skill category. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if kept, it still would need a rename for clarity per crystallography. - jc37 08:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, a rename would be fine with me. -- Ned Scott 09:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Assuming these people are actually crystallographers, not just people interested in crystallography, it is important to keep these people identified for cases when a specialist is needed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: Did you even read the article? - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? You linked two. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A small group but it might grow. The two of them both claim a PhD in the subject. There is no harm and some value in being able to identify an expert in a particular subject. I did not know it exists and I might well call on them now for help with an article. --Bduke (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If experts, then it would presumably be helpful if we knew specifically what they were an expert in. As such (and as I mentioned above), this at least needs a rename. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "crystallographer" is pretty clear. Most will specialize in X-ray crystallographer, but all will know about that form of radiation as well as about the use of neutrons and electrons for studying crystals. We do not need to be too specific. --Bduke (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No harm demonstrated. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, lack of clarity in categorisation is a hindrance to navigation.

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

Category:Wikipedians with a Linux Professional Institute Certification[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Listify, although I note the list already exists at Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits. Hiding T 10:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this previous UCFD, which noted a MfD of the related list page. There is also a second MfD which resulted in no consensus.

Category:Wikipedian members of micronations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:User WikiProject Micronations.

At first, this looked like a WikiProject category that needed to be renamed. However Category:WikiProject Micronations participants already exists (with several of the same editors). See also Template:User WikiProject Micronations. As it stands, this should be deleted as vague. (Which specific micronation(s)?) - jc37 03:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 03:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if this category is intended for members in the Wikiproject, if not, delete. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this category does not foster collaboration. In some cases, someone can become a "member" of a micronation just by paying €20, €50, or €100 for a shiny certificate. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who write for the WikiPolitics blog[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per much precedent. - jc37 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this at all officially associated with Wikimedia? If not, delete, if so, possibly keep. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that this is associated with Wikimedia; if it's not, the userbox is more than adequate to express the information. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even as a writer, I vote delete. This category doesn't do anything constructive for the encyclopedia. And no, it is not associated to Wikimedia. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Wizardman 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single editor cat. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find more members. This has great potential for us, if people which access to the JSTOR are willing to use it to help other editors by request. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Ned. --Bduke (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Incredibly useful to collaboration if we can increase awareness. Hiding T 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it attracts more members, it could be useful for verification and article expansion requests. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More needed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to some convention other than "who have access to" per my comments below. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most useful usercats I have seen in a long time, just needs more members. - Icewedge (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do we have one for Factiva as well or is JSTOR the only one? Orderinchaos 12:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just fielded a request for an article brought to me by this category this past week. Verifiability is one of our core values and this category seems like a very helpful way to help achieve that in the face of the lack of open access to many of our most important sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and beat the bushes to find more people who rightly belong in this category. JSTOR is a great resource for validating cites from recent journals, but useless to most of us who don't have subscriptions. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep, although note that Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library is a proposed rename immediately below, and conceivably we'll find over time that the more general category gets a lot more eyeballs than this one does. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made a request at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#JSTOR_access that we add a notice to the watchlist asking Wikipedians to consider categorising themselves so if the category applies. Hiding T 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, keep, and for the love of god, keep - Finally, somewhere to organize these guys so I don't have to go looking in Google News. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by access to research sites[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: the swing of the discussion is to Rename to Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. Hiding T 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are innumerable websites which require a sign-in to gain even partial access. Various newspapers, journals, libraries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the like. Is this a precedent that we wish to start?

Incidentally, it only has a single member; a subcat (which also has only a single member) which I've added above. If the single member subcat is deleted, then this could be deleted per WP:CSD#C1 - empty. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a somewhat new category, and a great new idea. Also per my comments in the above uCfD. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that I'm fine with the rename proposed below. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, I am agreeing with Ned. We can use references from all sorts of places. The scientific literature for example is available in libraries, but one often can not get internet access. Those, like myself, who can are valuable to check references that editors might be claiming establishes a point. As Ned says, this is great new idea, not something to pull down. --Bduke (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library ~~Category:Wikipedians by access to digital libraries~~ (JSTOR is located in Category:Digital libraries), since the JSTOR category (nominated above) needs a parent. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, I support a Rename. If "a digital library" (singular is better) is the proper term, then support. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, the singular is better. Ideally, the title should indicate that the category is only for digital libraries or research websites that restrict access (anyone can access Google Books, so a category for that is not useful). However, I've not been able to think of something other than "Wikipedians by access to a restricted digital library", which does not really convey the principle. Perhaps a category description could be used... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Restricted" may be the best choice. Any other ideas welcome. - jc37 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Black Falcon. Keep at least. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern with this category is the "By access to" part. People have access to plenty of things, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily going to use that access to help Wikipedia. Now, presumably people aren't going to add themselves to this category, and then when someone asks for them to use it to help get information for an article, they aren't going to say "sorry, I only have access to this, why the hell did you think I would actually use it to help?", but to avoid any possible confusion or chance of this happening I'd prefer some sort of rename. I don't think the majority of users would do this, but I do think that some users (most likely the ones who are in hundreds of user cats) scour through the categories to see which ones they could add, without actually wanting to collaborate. If we rename it, that problem is eliminated, but I'm not sure what the name should be (and I certainly don't oppose the "digital library" portion of the rename proposed). VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and agree with Vega's comments above. If used it should indicate a desire to help the encyclopaedia, and perhaps that could be made more explicit in the name. I would be happy to add myself to such a category if such a compromise naming was found. A similar category, although of a different nature, is Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. Orderinchaos 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rename to denote those users who are willing to help look things up, not merely that they have access... but definitely keep. I think a potential subcat is "users who have access to online university libraries". ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: No clear consensus. There are obvious concerns stated here, but there are also obvious benefits stated. Hiding T 10:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Nominating this as a test case.)

Now that SUL has been implemented, technically we all have, or easily can have, an account on any sister project. So contribution is merely to click a link (let's say on an image page) and you're instantly editing at commons, perhaps without even knowing.

On the other hand, being considered a contributor at commons might be an indirect indication of knowledge about images, however, that's: a.) not necessarily true, so b.) shouldn't be a reason to categorise, since it's not necessarily accurate.

This nom is not intended to include the cat's subcat. - jc37 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jc37. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — not everyone with a Wikipedia account has unified their account. Many probably never will, whose interest lies solely with the encyclopedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor's interest is only to edit the encyclopedia, then they likely won't be editing at Commons, and therefore wouldn't be a member of the category : ) - jc37 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point. It identifies which people at Wikipedia do contribute to Commons. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is not for users who haven an account at Commons, but who actively contribute to Commons. SUL shouldn't impact this at all. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If in the category, you have an account on Wikipedia. If you have an account, then... - In other words, the same rationale still applies. - jc37 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you can have an account and have no contribs. Regardless, this is obviously talking about active users. -- Ned Scott
The point is that saying this is nearly like saying: "Wikipedians who contribute to Wikipedia". As Commons' user list is now only a click away, how is this helpful? - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because not everyone will make that click. It would be easy for everyone to download and use the Safari web browser, and then join Category:Wikipedians who use Safari, but not everyone wants to. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unsure on this one. On one hand, I agree that this category is for those that contribute there, not necessarily for those who have an account there. On the other hand, what qualifies as "contribute"? Can editors who have one edit on Commons add themselves to this category? Perhaps a good compromise would be to rename the category to Category:Wikipedians who are active on Wikimedia Commons or something similar. "Active" is still subjective, but IMO decreases the chance that editors who only have a few edits there will add themselves to the category. When we get to the root of the category, the implication is that the category will be used for those looking for help about something related to Commons (who, presumably, is also familiar with Wikipedia, or why not just look on commons for someone?), so perhaps a rename (or deletion of this, and creation of a new category) targeted towards that use is a better idea. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott and Twas Now. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above. - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read them before putting in my keep decision. It's my belief that SUL has little to do with this, and that activity is more important. bibliomaniac 1 5 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My last comment (to Ned Scott) was posted after your "decision" - which was what I was referring to. My apologies for not being clearer. I'm still interested in your thoughts in regards to it. - jc37 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons experience is specialized enough that I consider any method by which one may find an editor to be a Good Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to something of the effect "Wikipedians who actively contribute to WikiMedia Commons". I would rather see a straight keep although, since that seems to be the effect of the category anyway. --Izno (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Wikimedia Commons administrators[edit]

Category:Wikipedian Wikisource administrators[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename both. Hiding T 09:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian Wikimedia Commons administrators to Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators

Rename Category:Wikipedian Wikisource administrators to Category:Wikisource administrators

To remove "Wikipedian", which is redundant in this case. May qualify for speedy. - jc37 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both - as nominator. - jc37 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both - per Jc37. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both — Helps to disambiguate. However, by removing mention that the category is for "Wikipedians", this category becomes open to article-space. Notable people with Wikipedia articles, who happen to be admins on those projects (are there any?) could be included in the renamed categories. Actually, I guess it is technically the user who is the administrator, not the physical person. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both, but to Category:Wikipedians who are Wikimedia Commons Administrators and Category:Wikipedians who are Wikisource administrators. I actually agree with Twas Now's crossed out statement that this does in theory open up the category for mainspace pages. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. The level of Wikipedia contribution will be obvious to anyone looking at the box, so the adjective "Wikipedian" is not necessary - either one is a Wikipedian and the category is true, or one isn't a Wikipedian and the category is still true - but one will still be able to handle queries about the other project regardless. Orderinchaos 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with renaming but these are useful categories. ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian administrators on sister projects to Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on sister projects

To clarify that these are other project admins, not Wikipedia admins who contribute to other projects. - jc37 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Definitely a useful category that could use a rename. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Thanks Bibliomaniac15 :) - Cirt (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. --Bduke (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, more clear. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom's suggestion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 10[edit]

Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another user-related category, which have been repeatedly deleted in the past. - jc37 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per precedent, as nominator. - jc37 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User talk:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb#A couple of requests --Van helsing (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this is proof that there is no god. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Even the templates must be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have solved all of these problems, so let it be. -- 20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the template is perfectly fine; it just needs to be moved to a subpage of the user's user page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me rephrase that: the template itself is fine, but its use on image pages (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User 20000) is not. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal userspace category (see extensive precedent). Editors who wish to keep track of pages in their userspace can do so using Special:Prefixindex (see e.g., Special:Prefixindex/User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per extensive precedent to deleted individual userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep -- SCARFACE 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed sockpuppet; indef-blocked. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb? This should have been speedy deleted immediately. Can someone delete it soon, please? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not yet. Very Strong Keep as this is vital to The Bomb's survival. -- Prem ^{(Give me some banter)} 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — Prem01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Confirmed sockpuppet; indef-blocked. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The originator stated on another archived page "Ian Cairns accepted the category as it wasn't in the main namespace of category naming. If you talk to him, he'll tell you all about it.". I should like to put on record that I did nothing of the sort. I complained about the use of a user category 'The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb' which omitted the prefix Wikipedians, since it had become highlighted in Uncategorized categories. I suggested that a category starting with 'Wikipedian' or 'Wikipedians associated with' should be alright. I did not accept anything, and anyhow I don't count. I did thank him for changing the original category. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these Keep votes were made by an IP (92.1.239.69 (talk · contribs)). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They also say "as per above", despite the absence anywhere above of rationale to keep the article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 9[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in (parts of) London[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in east London

Category:Wikipedians in southeast London

Category:Wikipedians in Croydon

Speedy rename at least to match East London, England.

As for the nom for deletion, the category inclusion criteria (duplicated in each) says it all: "Wikipedians who feel they are connected with east London in some way, possibly by living there."

"in some way"? "posibly living there"?

Also, while I did not nominate it, is Category:Wikipedians in Wimbledon miscategorised? Should a sub-urb of a city be considered "in" that city? I don't think so. (I think it's a naming confusion between London and Greater London.) Discussion welcome, though perhaps it could/should be moved to that category's talk page.

Delete all as nom. However, more discussion, and other suggestions (such as renames or merges), welcome. - jc37 08:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. London is Very Large. Being able to find other Wikipedians nearby is of benefit. I've fixed the wording that was objected to. And yes, "sub-urbs" [sic] of a city are in that city. The distinction between London and Greater London is irrelevant to this discussion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel that it's "irrelevant"? - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel that it's relevant? These categories relate to parts of London, which is located in an administrative subdivision called Greater London (which is not the same as the Greater London Urban Area). The only person ever to have mentioned Greater London in connection with these categories is you, so I can only imagine that that is where the confusion lies. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jc37, I think the point is that these subdivisions are sort of like the boroughs of New York (there are 32 boroughs of London, so I won't suggest that "boroughs" are equivalent in both cities). However, "Wikipedians in London" still needs to be recategorized in some other way—the link from Category:Wikipedians in southeast London goes to Plumstead, which to me appears to be closer to the northeast, and Croydon doesn't seem any greater than, say, Chelsea, and neither should have its own category. Making a subcategory for each of the 32 boroughs is way too much, but something like splitting London into 3–8 regions might do. The regions would have to be commonly used by Londoners themselves to describe parts of the city; we shouldn't impose on them divisions that most Londoners aren't familiar with. As a suggestion:
Category:Wikipedians in Central London

Category:Wikipedians in East London

Category:Wikipedians in South London

Category:Wikipedians in West London

Category:Wikipedians in North London
However, people could be in up to three categories, depending on their location (e.g. Hackney and Tower Hamlets are found in the Central, East, and North based on the maps in the articles). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Plumstead, which to me appears to be closer to the northeast" - your unfamiliarity with London is showing. This city is divided into north and south halves by the Thames. Plumstead is south of the river. Anyway, I think that Plumstead is not representative of southeast London and have removed the link. Also, all your suggestions are incorrectly capitalized; there is no formally-named "West London", etc. The user categories were formerly capitalized in this fashion; I corrected that because it conflicted with East London, Eastern Cape. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, this is vague, inaccurate categorisation, with probable overlap? - jc37 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely. The :Category:Wikipedians in Croydon is neither vague nor inaccurate and would lead to no overlap if we categorise by London borough, which seems the only plausible way forwards if we can not leave those people who know what they are doing to sort themselves out quietly and let them get on with it as they see fit. I would retain the status quo because no harm has been demonstrated. Hiding T 09:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't oppose Wikipedians in London being split up into subcats by borough. Sounds to me like it may be the most accurate way to do it. And not concerned with there being 20 subcats, presuming that's the best way to do it, and presuming that each would not be created (split from the parent) until they were "needed" (typically 4 or more members). Which, I believe "Wikipedians in Croydon", at least, would qualify for? - jc37 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying about the "most accurate way" at this point really is premature optimization. I suggest coming back to this issue when there are about ten times more editors in these categories. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hex, my suggestion was not to be interpreted as what should be done, but as a step in the right direction. According to each of their articles there are no official definitions for "Central London", "East London", "South London", or "North London" either, so why point out there is no formal "West London"? On the other hand the London Plan is pretty formal, and it divides London into precisely those subdivisions (including West London, a-ha!). Since I wasn't sure of this document's popularity or widespread acceptance, I didn't authoritatively say: "These are the subdivisions! We must categorize according to the London Plan!"

Naming convention would obviously be whatever Londoners think suitable, based on accepted, common-use subdivisions, and capitalization would be whatever is official, yet avoids ambiguity. As I said, this should not be decided upon by outsiders, since we don't want to impose locally obscure subdivisions onto Londoners. Did this get past you, or is there another reason you decided to point out the easily-correctable (and obviously non-authoritative) flaws with my suggestion? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. London has 7 million inhabitants covering 600 square miles! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first one needs renaming to match East London, England at minimum. Delete the second one- South East London is a disambiguation page, pointing towards South London. The third one is an interesting case, since Croydon isn't a city in itself, but rather a place within a City. I believe we have a similar category for Queens, New York. I'm inclined to keep this type of category if there is an article on the location, and if the population of this location seems big enough for collaboration potential. There is no mention of the population at the Croydon page, but looking over the article I would imagine this more than meets the population requirements. I'd like to revisit this series of categories in the future, however. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I had posted a comment here, but it doesn't seem to have "stuck"?) - Anyway, if kept, support VegaDark's proposals (Rename, delete, keep, respectively). - jc37 06:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since it works for me. Gordo (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It works for me" is an argument more suited to a discussion about a user page, rather than one concerning a category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first category to Category:Wikipedians in East London, rename the second to Category:Wikipedians in South London or delete per VegaDark, and merge the third to Category:Wikipedians in South London (Croydon is in South London). The category titles should match the article titles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: that first would need to be Category:Wikipedians in East London, England. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 8[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in userboxes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes, I'm not sure how those "interested in" userboxes would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a mistake as it is underpopulated. Agree with nom. --Bduke (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else create Category:Wikipedians interested in wikilinks, Category:Wikipedians interested in templates, and other such gobbledygook. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "interested in" tree (based on current convention, anyway) is only for Wikipedians by interest in an article topic. In addition, this category is vague in that it isn't clear what the interest in userboxes is. Is it an interest to place them on a userpage? An interest to edit or modify them? Create them? Look at them? The concept of them? With the exception of modify/create, I don't see a purpose leading to collaboration. And as Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes already exists, this one can and should be deleted. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could be sexual interest. This is a classifieds section, the other half is Category:Userboxes interested in Wikipedians. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit... That was rather humourous : ) - jc37 21:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. By the way, we did have an article on userboxes, but it was deleted. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 7[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who live on Cape Cod and the Islands[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who live on Cape Cod and the Islands to Category:Wikipedians in Cape Cod and the Islands

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, merge to standard naming; see Cape Cod and Islands. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge; redundant categories. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I noticed this a while back, and was about to nominate it myself. It looks like the users were in the target category, and a recent change to the userbox made users go in to the current category. This goes against our standard naming conventions, so should be reverted back to "In". VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — redundant. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 6[edit]

Category:Bratislava Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bratislava Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Bratislava

Speedy rename to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location (see {{User bratislava}}). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who translate pages into English[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Hiding T 09:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The present title of this category, while technically accurate, is somewhat confusing. This is not just a general category for anyone who translates pages into English, or for users who have made themselves available to translate content from certain languages to English (see Category:Available translators in Wikipedia), but rather a specific category for users who help out at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. A little over 100 of the 112 pages in the category are there due to {{User wikipedia/Pages needing translation into English}}, and the rest are probably substed instances of the template. To avoid ambiguity, I think that the category should be renamed; however, I'm unable to offer a good alternative at this time. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Pages needing translation into English (or weak rename to "...who participate in..."). The capitalised "P" of pages should help clarify that this is a project. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per jc37, barring any further suggestions. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A possible alternative title is Category:Wikipedians who participate in Pages needing translation into English. My impression is that we generally use "contribute to" for projects outside of en.wiki (such as alternate-language Wikipedia projects and online projects that are not affiliated Wikimedia). However, both titles are quite similar, so I'd support either one. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my initial comments above, I don't oppose that. And based on your comments, I'm now leaning more in that direction. - jc37 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(bangs head on keyboard) How'd I miss the text in the parentheses? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in JCI[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for current or former members of Junior Chamber International. As such, it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians in Junior Chamber International or deleted as with most other "Wikipedians by organisation" categories. While the possible collaborative scope of this category is not limited to just one article (see Category:Junior Chamber International), it is relatively narrow for an interest category. (Also note that the category currently contains only two actual users.) Moreover, no encyclopedically-relevant knowledge or ability seems to be readily apparent from membership in this category.

Delete (1st choice) or rename (2nd choice) to Category:Wikipedians in Junior Chamber International as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I wouldn't be opposed to reviewing the deletion request after another month or two, since it's been created somewhat recently (To see if other users add themselves, and to see how it might play out in collaboration). -- Ned Scott 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or rename (2nd choice) per nom. Seems a bit narrow for collaboration, and per "no encyclopedically-relevant knowledge or ability seems to be readily apparent from membership in this category". VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like 3 userboxes, and 3 members. And while this isn't a single article cat, it's rather close. In addition, this is service organisation, so it doesn't even qualify for the exception (the no consensus) of computing/engineering topic-related organisation cats (Category:Wikipedians by computing or engineering organization). So delete per precedent as well. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:NRI or PIO Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article, the scope of this category extends at minimum to anyone who is:

(1) An Indian citizen who has migrated to another country,

(2) A person of Indian origin who is born outside India,

(3) A person of Indian origin who resides outside India,

(4) A person of Indian origin, up to four generations removed, who is not a citizen of India,

(5) A spouse of a person of Indian origin, up to four generations removed, who is not a citizen of India,

The primary function of user categories is to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, and this category does not do that, in part due to its inclusiveness, in part due to the fact that there is really no encyclopedically-relevant reason to seek out anyone on the basis of these characteristics, and in part due to the redundancy created by the existence of Category:Indian Wikipedians (an "origin" category), Category:Wikipedians in India (a "residence" category), and other similar categories for other ethnicities, nationalities, and locations.

Delete as nominator (see also this related discussion). Since the people in this category are not necessarily even of Indian origin (see #5 above), merging to Category:Indian Wikipedians may introduce miscategorisation and should probably be avoided. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Indian Wikipedian citizens[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for users who are citizens of the Republic of India. For the purposes of user categorisation, which is intended to provide tools to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users, knowing the citizenship of another users is not particularly relevant, particularly when Category:Indian Wikipedians already exists.

Delete (1st choice) or merge to Category:Indian Wikipedians as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not help to categorize by citizenship. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anglo-German Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Category:British-Irish Wikipedians, which is nominated for deletion below, this is a category for a particular intersection of ancestries populated by a userbox (link) that states: "This user is of German and British ancestry." As we already have Category:British Wikipedians and Category:German Wikipedians, an intersection category is not needed (it does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration) and sets a poor precedent for similar categories. See related discussions here.

Delete as nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per precedent of other ancestry cats. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who add interwiki links[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Not positive of a consensus to keep, but definitely no consensus to delete. Wizardman 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine that this category could facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, or that there might be any reason to specifically seek out someone who adds interwiki links. The task of adding interwiki links is a fairly simple one (for the most part it is done by bots) and I do not think that this category reflects any special ability, knowledge, or understanding.

Delete as nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Is there more to this than those who run bots to add the interwikilinks? - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware. I know it's often also done manually (usually by IP accounts, in my experience), and I sometimes do it in foreign-language Wikipedias when I notice a missing link, but the process involves no special skill or ability that I can think of (an understanding of multiple languages is helpful but usually not strictly necessary). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading over InterWiki (and other related pages), I've changed to strong delete. The problem here is that the category doesn't specify (and can't specify per it's current name, and, based on the userbox, its current intent) that this is limited to Wikimedia projects, but rather includes the addition of any Wiki links. (See also History of wikis). As such, this is about as useful as "Wikipedians who edit a wiki somewhere". As anyone who edits can add a link by adding brackets with an antecedent, such as noted at m:Help:Interwiki linking. See also the Wikipedia Interwiki-Link-Checker, for a (presumably) Wikimedia-related interwiki tool. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — these users may want to collaborate in efforts to add interwiki links. From my understanding, bots only add interwiki links if one of the pages has the interwiki link, but the other does not. For example, if en:paper has an interwiki link to fr:papier, but fr:papier does not have a link to en:paper, then the bot will add it to fr:papier. If none of the pages have the original interwiki link, however, then the bot will not add to both. This is why we need editors, who generally will need some degree of multilingual skills. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't you just add a line to the userbox that says something like "You can help!!!". Nobody is going to get to this category by mistake; you don't just type in "Wikipedians who add interwiki links" into the search box. So about the only way to get there is via one of the user pages that are in the category, and both of them have the user box. --Kbdank71 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people do them by hand (there are several technical limitations on the bots that prevent them from covering all interwiki links). This is as valid as any other collaborative category on the wiki. I do not find it hard to imagine such users looking to find each other, discuss issues and tools related to the task, and so on. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. Perhaps this category should become a task force. There must be some WikiProject that would be interested in promoting the addition of interwiki links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per InterWiki I share some of the same concerns as jc37. Without prejudice of creating a more specifically named category for the activities the users above mention, however. VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gunna say "keep" on this one. When we had an interwiki bot that went wild, I had to seek out an interwiki guru to clean up the mess. Could be useful in the future. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I share the concerns of Jc, but I think the best bet is to find a better name, with the input of the members so categorised. Hiding T 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like MST3K[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like MST3K to Category:Wikipedians who like Mystery Science Theater 3000

Nominator's rationale: To expand the abbreviation and match the article title (Mystery Science Theater 3000). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename to expand an acronym, per nom. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Diary of a Wimpy Kid[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for Wikipedians who like the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series or the first book in the series (see the userbox). In either case the category may be overly narrow in scope, but it is especially so in the latter case (i.e. as a single-article category). It's also worth noting that collaboration could be coordinated through WikiProject Wimpy Kid. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who read the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series (convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre) or Category:Wikipedians who read Jeff Kinney (convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single article category. No prejudice against (re-)creation of the categories (series and/or author) suggested by the nom. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the userbox, the users in this category simply like the first book, and not necessarily the entire series, so this would be too narrow for collaboration. No prejudice to creation of a "series" category per jc37. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British-Irish Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially an ancestry category, which have all been deleted. Populated by a userbox that says "This user is of Irish and British ancestry." We already have Category:British Wikipedians and Category:Irish Wikipedians, a combination category like this is not needed and sets precedent to keep any number of ethnicity combination categories. Similar precedent exists here. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the previous "ancestry" discussions and previous "intersection" discussions. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; while the category's contents could be upmerged to the two parent categories, I don't think that having "British and Irish ancestry" always automatically translates into self-identifying as being both British and Irish. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Where does it end, "Category:German-Scottish-French-Italian-Irish Wikipedians"? These editors can join Category:British Wikipedians and Category:Irish Wikipedians. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't they also need to be in Category:Dilithium crystals to avoid an uncontrolled annihilation reaction on their user page? --Kbdank71 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete What business is it of yours how other people care to identify themselves? Urselius (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User categories are intended for collaboration; mere self-identification can be achieved through userboxes or text notices on user pages (see Wikipedia:User categories). Self-identification does not require forming a grouping. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cleanup Taskforce members who have been asked to re-register[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Listify. Now to work out how that happens. Hiding T 10:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, this category has no indication it is a user category, so it at minimum needs some sort of rename. Second, this category was attached to a template sent to users approximately a year ago asking them to re-sign up for the cleanup taskforce, and there is no indication it was removed if/when these users actually did re-sign up, so there may be users who did that yet are still listed in this category. Finally, this would do better as a list at the cleanup taskforce page rather than a category if they still want to keep track of this. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Listify as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - This is one of those cases where a category isn't the best idea, per WP:CLN (Yes, I realise it's not categorising articles, but this is a similar situation). The category doesn't explain "why" each was asked. That would be better done as a list (including dates, and so on). - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom and jc37; there are multiple lists here and here. Just as a list is maintained for those who have re-registered, a list can be maintained for those who've been asked to re-register. The precedent of CFD - 'Category:New users to WP:NOVELS' may be relevant. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like "past taskforce members" or "inactive taskforce members", both of which are a valid use of user categories. -- Ned Scott 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're not (I can see about digging up several past precedents if you would like). Categories exist in the "present tense". So (albeit with a few notable exceptions) no former or future cats. For example, Missing Wikipedians. These are all better served as a list, since reasons (if any) can be explained, as can dates in relation to the activity. (And a list is just a better historical record, which is, I presume, the actual intent of this category.) - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify — get it outta here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who welcome new users[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to seek out Wikipedians specifically to do this, so grouping such users does not benefit the encyclopedia. Nobody is going to look through this category to find someone to ask to help welcome new users; it would take more time doing that than simply welcoming themself. The subcategory of Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee (which has slightly more value, since that group does more than just welcome users) can be moved to a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm slightly torn on this. Most of the members of the category are due to transclusion of this userbox. And several who are in the welcoming committe category are also in this one. However, if we delete it are we suggesting to editors that they cannot collaborate in this way unless they are considered part of the welcoming "committee"? Further discussion welcome. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete / Merge to Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee depending on further discussion. - jc37 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from weak keep, to weak delete, per Black Falcon's comments below. - jc37 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think that deletion of the category would suggest that users cannot or should not welcome users outside of the structure of the Welcoming Committee; rather, it would be because the nature of the activity is not one that requires categorisation. Anyone can welcome users using {{welcome}}, and I can't think of a reason to specifically seek out someone who does this. Any questions about welcoming could be directed to the talk page of the Welcoming Committee or to any one of its members. To some extent, I see the category as intended to express a preference for a particular welcoming template. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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