Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2006 November 2006 >

October 31[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who play[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete (already empty).--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be added when {{User card games}} was used with a card game as a parameter that wasn't listed. I've changed so now it adds Category:Wikipedians who play card games, so this category is empty. TimBentley (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was earlier going to start a request for merge on this category, but I had to do something in real life. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wondering if this is a result of my comment about CVG players below? : ) - Nice catch on the userbox, btw, I was having trouble finding it. - jc37 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 30[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are just plain weird[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless category. Also, the category page says, "If you're paranormal, go make your own category." This may encourage Wikipedians to make more useless categories. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. I don't need a category to find weird people; I encounter them every day.--WaltCip 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These are the types of categories that give user categories a bad name. I'm all in favor of having humor on Wikipedia, but categories are hardly the way to do it. This category could not serve any purpose. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV that could include everyone : ) - jc37 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather useless and unencyclopedic. As Cswyre said, humor is good, but there are better ways. Picaroon9288 02:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - us "paranormal" already have a category. :) ---J.S (t|c) 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 29[edit]

Urdu[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few language categories that ignores the Babel scheme.--Mike Selinker 18:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

vbnet[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And two sets for Visual Basic .NET.--Mike Selinker 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Python[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are two sets of Python programming language categories. Time to condense.--Mike Selinker 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Norwegians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename nb, but nn withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason there are three sets of identical Norwegian language categories. Let’s have one.--Mike Selinker 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Presuming that "no" is correct by iso standard, per infobox at Norwegian language. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I went with the one on top of that infobox. Not sure if that makes it correct. --Mike Selinker 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, and support : ) - jc37 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. - jc37 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nn. They're separate entities. See no:Main Page/nn:Main Page. nb/no should be merged though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to trust that GeeJo knows a hell of a lot better what's right for those categories than I do, since I can't tell the pages apart. I've withdrawn the nn nominations, and kept the rest.--Mike Selinker 06:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User no-tlh[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These users don't like Klingon (the made-up language). See below.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warp 9 Delete, Captain.--WaltCip 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I oppose most other "I don't like X" categories. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but refrase for the same reasons I've stated below for no-eo. Yes, I created this userbox, but just by copying the no-eo userbox. I long wanted to express my principal opposition to languages with which one cannot properly express oneself (the tlh-0 template is ambiguous for that matter, as it expresses both "not able to speak" as well as "not want to speak" (a huge difference)). I meant a whole other thing than just something like "I don't like it because sounds bad", and yes, this huge difference should be expressed properly (my mistake for not doing that in the first place). I say disambiguify the tlh-0 template and refrase the no-tlh template, so both ideas can be expressed unambiguously. --JorisvS 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although your points are not without merit, the error with having "NOT" categories is that the infinite number of people who may be suited for this category are reduced to a finite number who A. See the category, and B. Care about the category. For information about the faults with such thinking, see the link below, or go to the not categories..--WaltCip 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite get your point: isn't your reduction from an infinite amount of people (though some 6.5 billion people on Earth is hardly infinite) to a finite amount of people who, first, know about it and, second, care about it something quite universal, and so that it is an empty argument?
    Moreover, I wasn't talking about a mere 'not' category, but rather about the second part of the sentence on the tlh-0 template (or for that matter quite a few ...-0 templates), namely: "or do not want to speak Klingon". I don't know about you, but I rather detest things that conflate two quite different things into one thing without knowing which one is meant (rather like the not categories about all kinds of shitty things, like those discussed in your link).
    Speaking of faults in thinking: I could think of quite a few userboxes (including several even on your userpage:P) of which it is possible to make a near infinite amount of variations (and are even more useless than the no-tlh template (or whatever is best to call it)), and then should, for the same reasons as not categories, be deleted. --JorisvS 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an empty argument. Rather, it's been a past argument for previous nominations for deletion of categories like these. The userboxes on my user page are just that, userboxes, NOT categories - these are two entirely different worlds. A category organizes a Wikipedian into a specified space, while a userbox is merely an image. Read the "Wikipedians who don't like IE" discussion in the archives.--WaltCip 16:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User no-eo[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These users don't like Esperanto. We don't like categories that don't like things. See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#The "not" categories.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't like a particular flavor of ice cream. Do I create a category to list Wikipedians who share my distaste? No. Wikipedia is here for educational purposes. If it were a category for those who are philosophically opposed to Esperanto (if that is possible), it might be a more complicated issue. But for a simple matter of taste, or in this case, distaste for a particular thing, it's a waste of disk space. Michael Hardy 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Michael Hardy. And my favorite is pistachio.--WaltCip 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, finally.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I oppose most other "I don't like X" categories. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but refrase, because it can be a nice way to distinguish between not wanting to learn (or wanting to be able to speak) the language and not yet being able to speak it (because you've just started to learn it). An enormous difference!
    Michael Hardy said: "I don't like a particular flavor of ice cream. Do I create a category to list Wikipedians who share my distaste?". I concur that there shouldn't be all kinds of useless userboxes expressing just likings or dislikings, however by refrasing the contents of the no-... userboxes to a more principal or philosophical opposition (for whatever reason a user might have) they can be very useful, so I say refrase. --JorisvS 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User AID[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the AID/M category from the 22nd. Let's start figuring out a template we all like for all these WikiProjects and see where it gets us.--Mike Selinker 14:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. per nom. (Since it's a drive, "participants" makes sense to me : ) - jc37
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 28[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in computer and video games to Category:Wikipedians who play computer and video games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the passive LiveJournal category below, this category contains only a few members and mostly duplicates a much bigger category.--Mike Selinker 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse Merge - You don't have to play them to be knowledgeable about (or at least interested in) them. Programmers, historians, and such, for example. - jc37 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want to reverse merge every category of "Wikipedians who play...", jc? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.--Mike Selinker 13:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can accept that. How about if we use Category:Wikipedians interested in computer and video games as the umbrealla cat, with "play" as a subcat? There are several subcats of "play" that clearly belong in "interested", while restricting "play" to just that: those who "play" cvg games. This would mean less work, and would clarify the whole thing. - jc37 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge per jc.--WaltCip 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mike Selinker. While "interested in" and "play" do mean different things, I believe that for the purposes of the user categorization system, the distinction isn't necessary. Since "play" is more consistent with similar categories (as well as having a much large number of users), I recommend keeping it instead of making a lot of extra work for ourselves. —Cswrye 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps simply delete the category, then?--WaltCip 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose that, for the same reasons recently said about instant messager users. - jc37 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who eat at Culver's Frozen Custard[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just noticed this one; see my below nomination of Category:Wikipedians who eat at Pizza Hut for reasoning behind this nomination. Picaroon9288 22:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete BTW, what IS Culver's Frozen Custard?--WaltCip 01:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Culver's. Anthony Rupert 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. I read the Pizza Hut entry you pointed out. What I don't understand is this: the argument is that naming every restaurant chain isn't a good path to go down, but why aren't categories like Category:Wikipedians who like Grey's Anatomy or Category:Wikipedians who like Law & Order being nominated for deletion? Why are the categories acceptable for television shows but not for restaurants? Anthony Rupert 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My opinion: TV shows can create many dozens of articles. At best a restaurant chain will create a couple, and so knowing users who have knowledge of that seems less significant. Just an opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you mean by "many dozens of articles"? Do you mean subcategories, or see also pages, or do you mean articles in general? If you mean the latter, where's strong evidence proving that a restaurant article can't do the same? Anthony Rupert 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't have evidence of that, it's just a rationale. But category:The Simpsons has dozens of articles, and category:Pizza Hut doesn't exist. So I think finding like-minded individuals in the former's case is likely to produce more results than than in the latter. Again, your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I opposed the deletion of the restaurant cats in the previous massive food deletion nom. I may oppose this as well, on the same grounds, but for now, I'm abstaining, per further discussion. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't need "Wikipedians who eat..." categories, and this one only has four pages and one Wikipedian. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe that's because it's only been up for a few days, thus a lot of people may not know about it yet? Anthony Rupert 03:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who eat at Pizza Hut[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have nothing against Pizza Hut; I eat there myself. But categorizing Wikipedians by what restaurants/fast food chains they eat at isn't a good path to go down. The possibility for subconscious advertisement, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not MySpace, are reasons enough for deleting this category before any more of them are created. Picaroon9288 22:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already deleted this one with the rest of the restaurant categories.--Mike Selinker 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't in the deletion log under this name. Do you remember what the name was last time? Picaroon9288 23:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was wrong. We deleted lots of others of this type at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#Wikipedians by diet, but not Pizza Hut.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I opposed the deletion of the restaurant cats in the previous massive food deletion nom. I may oppose this as well, on the same grounds, but for now, I'm abstaining, per further discussion. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who are addicted to Postcrossing to Category:Wikipedian postcrossers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To match category:Wikipedians who do Bookcrossing.--Mike Selinker 21:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User skype to Category:Wikipedians who use Skype[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted category, post-merger.--Mike Selinker 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename without dispute per the MSN discussion.--WaltCip 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per the previous discussion. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:IBook G4 users to Category:Wikipedians who use iBook G4 computers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 01:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To match other subcategories of category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers.--Mike Selinker 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 27[edit]

Drivers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/delete as nominated.--Mike Selinker 14:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename:

and delete:

Another bad idea for a Babel categorization scheme. I might (hypothetically) care if someone drives, but I can't imagine caring how well.--Mike Selinker 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all except to Delete the zero-level cat. And a thought: Wikipedian car drivers? Wikipedian motorists? Or even just Wikipedian drivers? Or from another angle: Wikipedians licensed to drive? - jc37 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. WikiPedia is becoming more and more like MySpace every day. Why should I need to know if someone can drive?--WaltCip 20:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Compared to what the user categories were like six months ago, I'd say that we're becoming less like MySpace. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but if there's not consensus to delete, please rename per nom. I think that driving a car is common enough to make these categories irrelevant. I don't see how they could be helpful in editing. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, since there is an age requirement to drive (and not for wikipedia), and because often in large cities in the US (and elsewhere), and for that matter in other countries, driving is not as prevalent, I don't know if we could say that this is a group of all, or even most Wikipedians. Let's merge for now, and once completed, someone can list that category for deletion, and we can discuss it more fully in that way. - jc37 21:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. I'm changing my vote to rename for now. —Cswrye 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nice Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 14:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox that adds Wikipedians to this category is for condemning personal attacks, not being all-around nice. Besides, the current name is easily confusable with Category:Friendly Wikipedians. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, actually. Either wording makes the assumption that Wikipedians who are not in the category do not condemn/are not nice. That's divisive, in my view, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. -- nae'blis 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed "condemn" from the userbox, changing it to "advise against" (best I could think of at the moment). I went through a lot of the Category:Wikipedians subcats (again), and I don't see similar wikipedian philosophy statements. The closest were a few about image use. (Which should also probably be deleted.) - jc37 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The userbox seems ok, I suppose, but I think the category should go. - jc37 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know if I like the word "condemn" seems too strong, but the category "kind wikipedians" seems too... loaded. Jcam 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that this category serves any real purpose. Personal attacks are against our community policy, so every Wikipedians should be condemning them. Whether or not someone is in this category is ultimately irrelevant. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What kind of category should this be: How should it be determined, who (and why) to place in it and who not? --JorisvS 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User BrE[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 14:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked to see improper Babel categories like this. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. A bloody useless category.--WaltCip 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per current standard. - jc37 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the bloody category as per above. Jcam 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to conform to the standard. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to conform to the standard naming method. --JorisvS 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 26[edit]

Category:New Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Category:New Wikipedians - This may be a useful communicative template to post on a userpage, but I don't see the need for the category. - jc37 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is about the one place I can imagine a temporal category. New people often need new people to learn with, and tutors often need new people to help.--Mike Selinker 10:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can be helpful for those looking to assist newcomers. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 10:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral delete pushing no consensus.--WaltCip 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Mike Selinker here. New editors often need more help, or perhaps a welcome. This category can help other editors find the newer ones and offer assistance if desired. —Cswrye 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but if we're going for consistency shouldn't it be renamed something like Category:Wikipedian beginners? -- nae'blis 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with an adjective at the front.--Mike Selinker 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If useful for being able to find new users in order to help them, then I suppose I concede the point. If so, then all the others should be merged to this one to aid prospective helpers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc37 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Hamilton[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by (aeropagitica) as empty. TimBentley (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 24[edit]

category:Wikipedia Sock Puppet Master to category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy and amended.--Mike Selinker 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD to Category:Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to suggest spelling that out.--Mike Selinker 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason why I want this deleted is not because of my views on deletionism, but because I feel a bit annoyed about having to say AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD over and over again every time I address AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. Is there a way to shorten the name down to a sensible size?--WaltCip 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (chuckle) I do understand, but since it's a meta organisation, and a part of the heirarchy, I suggest that we leave it for them. (Though a note on their talk page probably wouldn't hurt : ) - jc37 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - This is a legitimate wiki organization. Sure, it has a ridiculous name, but I don't see why it shouldn't have its own category when similar wiki organizations do. I have no preference for "in" or "members of". —Cswrye 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to whatever is standard, but keep the organization. The AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD may be a satirical organization, but it is a legitimate satirical Wikipedia organization. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 18:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing as how there's 3D and 3R, we may reach no consensus. If it helps out I'll recant to rename.--WaltCip 02:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually 4R, including the nominator, with you, that makes 5 to 2. : ) - jc37 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Kindness Campaign members to Category:Wikipedians in the Kindness Campaign[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the Welcoming Committee below.--Mike Selinker 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:User Wikipedia/Association of Members' Advocates to Category:Wikipedians in the Association of Members' Advocates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Per the "in" template of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:User Wikipedia/Welcoming Committee to category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the "in" template of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:User manga-? to Category:Wikipedians who like manga[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category should have been included in the Manga categories debate below. Shiroi Hane 14:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Delete. Tj's point below is compelling. This appears to be another variant on the "I don't like" category.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my previous nomination. --WaltCip 12:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Delete per Tj.--WaltCip 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - jc37 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. —Cswrye 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category is not really a subset of wikipedians who like manga, it's more of a Wikipedians who are neutral towards manga or Wikipedians who don't understand manga, and hence useless. Also, is it just me or does that category self-include? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MS. - jc37 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per tjstrf. —Cswrye 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Patrollers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter one is for a subset of patrollers who look for people climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, which is my favorite saying on Wikipedia, but nonetheless I don't think we should divide people by the reasons for the tasks they perform.--Mike Selinker 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Though wondering if it should be "newpage", "new-page", or "new page". - jc37 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any of those is probably fine. The page name is "New pages." Anyone have a preference?--Mike Selinker 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    New page would be my preference. I also think we should capitalize "New" and "Recent". These are specific pages, not general references. For example, it's not: Wikipedian recent change patrollers; it's: Wikipedian Recent changes patrollers. - jc37 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, with "new page" as two words in the first one. -- nae'blis 20:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I amended that one. I'm not sure I buy the capitalization argument from jc, though. Check out the user boxes on Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. "Newpage" and "new page" goes back and forth, but capitalization is lowercase.--Mike Selinker 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I don't think that "Recent changes" should be capitalized. I suspect that the only reason it appears that way is because of technical limitations, which is the same reason why we have to capitalize the first word of every article. If it were intended to be capitalized, it would probably be called "Recent Changes", which it isn't. —Cswrye 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's an issue of grammar and how one refers to something. If it ends up being lower case, the world won't end, but it will be incorrect grammatically. "Recent changes", as used in Wikipedia, is a proper noun, just as "Categories for Deletion" is a proper noun. It's not referring to a category, or even a group of catgories up for deletion, but rather a specific location which is named that. Same with "Recent changes". It's a page that lists recent changes. (Hence the confusion, I think.) Anyway, how about Category:Wikipedian patrollers of recent changes and Category:Wikipedian patrollers of new pages? I still think even in that case it should be capitalised, but at least in this way, the grammar will be correct. - jc37 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Signature Award[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An award created by one of the two users in the category who have received it. I don't think we need categories by awards, personally, or everyone with a barnstar is going to suddenly get lots of categories.--Mike Selinker 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Didn't the category of everyone welcomed by the welcoming committee get deleted for similar reasons? - jc37 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, -Per nom--SeadogTalk 23:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. —Cswrye 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


"Loved" Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a grinch for nominating these, but there's no way to know how the user community feels about someone. I don't mind pretty much anything a user claims themselves to be, but claiming others' opinions seems problematic.--Mike Selinker 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*knock knock* creator here. I created the userboxes that place a user in these categories to give to Wikipedians who have the {{user hated}} userbox on their page. I'm actively sending people messages on their talk pages with spoof Afd (in this case "Ufd", userbox for deletion") messages indicating that thier user hated userboxes should be substitued, to show that people care. My project is in the early stages, which is why hardly anyone is in these categories -- yet! — Editor at Large(speak) 17:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxes aside, why the need for categories? --Kbdank71 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Admirable intentions, but potentially divisive and not the best use of the category structure. We don't do "loved" for article subjects, let's not make that something we do in the Wikipedian categories. I'd be tempted to ask someone to run a bot adding all users to the cat just to make everyone feel special. Userboxes, okay, I can live with. Category, um...no. Sorry. Hiding Talk 18:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about more than making people feel special: people who put the user hated box on their page are likely feeling down or depressed, whether in real life or on Wikipedia. I send them a funny message and a box and hope they cheer up; and it works! This conversation (preserved here for posterity) attests to that. — Editor at Large(speak) 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree. A userbox can be about anything, but a category makes a statement of fact that I'm afraid this category, however well intentioned, can't meet.--Mike Selinker 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally the categories were added when I changed the name of the "Category" section on a copy-and-paste of one of my other userboxes' code; but I found they were helpful in keeping track of the people who had recieved the userboxes. I see, though why you say they are redundant; go ahead and delete them, I can use the what links here feature. — Editor at Large(speak) 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a much better solution.--Mike Selinker 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above conversation with creator. -- nae'blis 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I respect Editor at Large for what he's trying to do, but keeping track of who is using a userbox isn't a good reason to create a category. Beyond that, the category doesn't serve much of a purpose. —Cswrye 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She. :) — Editor at Large(speak) 04:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Wikipedians interested in LiveJournal[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) This category hasn't grown beyond its one member, and sems easily confused with category:Wikipedians who use LiveJournal.--Mike Selinker 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:User cvg-6 to category:Wikipedians who play computer and video games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge per rest of cvg categories.--Mike Selinker 19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this one in the "Gamer categories" discussion.--Mike Selinker 13:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only one user. Second priority if no consensus - merge. --WaltCip 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Shiroi Hane 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom. - only member is category creator. He also seems to have a non-existant userbox of the same name on his userpage (Not even a deletion log for it?) - jc37 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. —Cswrye 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Beginner Wikipedians to category:New Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to mean the same thing, and the latter category is much larger than the former.--Mike Selinker 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 23[edit]

Category:N00b Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to category:New Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already Category:Beginner Wikipedians, merge there. If that's not what's intended by n00b Wikipedians, delete. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Category:Wikipedians who would shoot Greedo first[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Star Wars category.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly useless category. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to deletion would be to merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 22[edit]

Category:User AID/M[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category currently goes against the proper naming style. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 16[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to "Wikipedian Wiki(Magical Beings)" (consensus was to rename, and the most popular rename was selected).--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFairy/Gnome Categories[edit]

These renames are to follow the proper style. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search google for "Category:Wikipedians that are" and "Category:Wikipedians who are"; "who are" seems to be the norm. —ptk✰fgs 08:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 15[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete and merge as nominated.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manga categories[edit]

Rename

Delete

Per previous nomination on anime and pilot. Does not warrant its own Babel categorization.--WaltCip 02:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More adoptions[edit]

Per the previous adoption nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename per previous nom.--WaltCip 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they're empty, and a whole category for Wikipedians adopted by one user isn't necessary. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:user cocaine[edit]

Not a big fan of categories where a user admits to a crime.--Mike Selinker 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's disputable, and I'm not exactly sure which way to go with this. I'm erring on the side of caution with this one. Delete per nom.--WaltCip 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 2 members, and I don't see a great likelyhood that this will aid in collaboration. - jc37 06:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cocaine use isn't a crime everywhere, but I question the utility of this category unless someone can convince me otherwise. —Cswrye 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', in no way useful to know. Hiding Talk 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and promotes a criminal/polemical activity. --tjstrf 18:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not usefull and promotes alot of bad things--Seadog.M.S 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was rename per revised nomination.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instruments[edit]

These are the top level categories for musical instrument players. I went with the simplest possible approach for each name, wherever possible matching category:Musicians by instrument. I’d like to leave the Babel discussion for later, and just focus on making these categories have English names rather than jargon.--Mike Selinker 00:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celloists to Category:Wikipedian cellists[edit]

Misspelled category, also confusion with Category:Cellists. - Mike Rosoft 21:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

October 14[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who are Sphenisciologists to category:Wikipedians interested in penguins[edit]

Eschewing obfuscation.--Mike Selinker 20:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. (Too funny : ) - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as to which the nominator has determined through the process. This idiosyncratic phrase transcends all manifestiously possible standards of dubious elitist manipulation and unnecessary overimplied and overstated categorization..--WaltCip 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - There is value in simplicity. —Cswrye 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify the phrase of reference, as hypothetically, it is preferable to accompany electronically transmitted information with a state of simplicity. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was delete and merge as nominated.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime categories[edit]

rename:

and delete:

This is a partial relist from this discussion, trying to see if people support collapsing these categories into their base category. It's good to have the connection between people who might write about anime, but I think the babel system fails us here.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 0-level category. - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the rest per nom. - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd keep, but I'm not a big fan of anime. Therefore, rename per nom. Delete 0-level category.--WaltCip 02:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "-0" category and rename other categories - Again, I don't think there's a reason to categorize by level of interest. —Cswrye 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was delete, merge and rename per revised nomination by jc.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot categories[edit]

rename:

and delete:

Similar to the one above. This is a profession, and no other profession (except musical instruments) has this kind of babel scheme.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See: Pilot licensing and certification. An instrument certified pilot can fly a plane without use of windows/vision. It's also a different certification. Commercial airline pilots are quite different than general pilots. However, I don't think we need to differentiate between the regular commercial pilots and private pilots. If ever we have military, or space pilots listed, I would suggest that they too have a separate category. - jc37 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "-0" and Rename as suggested. Would also recommend creation of a category for Certified Flight Instructors. As stated above, being instrument rated or not is mostly orthoginal to what level of pilot certificate is held. Typically, one would be Instrument Rated before getting their Commercial certificate but that is not required. Upholder 01:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was delete and merge as nominated.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer categories[edit]

rename:

and delete:

Similar to the two above. It's a hobby, and thus the babel scheme is unnecessary. It's good to have the connection to other people who like (and thus might write about) games, but not this gradation.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Practical measurement of comparison from people who work for most of their life from people who play. See Geek Code--WaltCip 20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No other category of "people who play" has this kind of subdivision, except musical instruments.--Mike Selinker 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. I don't see the need for a comparison between workers and players. —ptk✰fgs 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I guess I don't either. I amended it to be the same as the rest. (Note to those reading it now: I originally had it as "Wikipedian professional computer and video game players".)--Mike Selinker 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0-level category. - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the rest per nom. And I agree with the "professional" removal (especially since I suggested that last time : ) - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "-0" category and rename other categories - I think that this was a carryover from the language categories, which use the same structure. It was set up for a few hobby categories, but not very many. Most user categories don't use this structure, and I don't think there's any value in doing so either. The only distinction that I think might be of value is a separation of recreational cvg players and professional cvg players (the latter might go under Category:Wikipedians by profession). Other than that, editors are editors regardless of their video gaming skills. —Cswrye 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WaltClip. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge+Rename as proposed. Believe it or now, we're here to make an encyclopedia not MySpace. GarrettTalk 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was already speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who do not support the use of Internet Explorer[edit]

Also added due to creation of this category during the following discussion. Please comment in the "hate" nomination below.--Mike Selinker 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer[edit]

Added due to creation of this category during the following discussion. Please comment in the following nomination.--Mike Selinker 04:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer[edit]

Per deletion of previous anti-IE categories. Looks like we're going to have to salt some of these.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fresh, strong, speedy delete***--WaltCip 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, salt per nom.--WaltCip 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with any anti-IE page? People hate IE! That's a fact. People have become very fed-up with it in the past several years. Why can't Wikipedians express their dislike for it? I don't even understand the issue. Are you being paid off by M$ or something? -KingpinE7
    • A category isn't required for users to express their dislike. They can simply post an anti-IE userbox without a category, or write "I HATE INTERNET EXPLORER!" on their userpage. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually, we'll delete a template that expresses any kind of "hate", and we're not being paid off by everyone. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to wave hate-flags, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, am I allowed to change the page to, say, Wikipedians who dislike Internet Explorer? -KingpinE7
    • I'd rather you didn't. As you can see in the archives, it's been a consensus to delete any categories that are purely about dislikes. There's no encyclopedic purpose to linking up over article topics you can't abide.--Mike Selinker 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • <exasperated>How about Wikipedians who do not use Internet Explorer ?</exasperated> -KingpinE7
        • Sorry, that's not likely to get a keep consensus here either. It's less about expression than it is about utility. Most people on this board are in favor of people creating categories that allow users to link over positive things they might have in common, but things they don't use aren't among them. There are many things people don't use, for many reasons.--Mike Selinker 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, a lot of Wikipedians do not use Internet Explorer. Can you think of anything I can change it to, though? -KingpinE7
            • Not if you want to express a sentiment against a particular product.--Mike Selinker 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wonder if we should differentiate between "does not like" (the "not" categories), and "does not use". Though "does not use", sounds like a "supporter/critic of x" category. Which, last I recall, is still under discussion whether allowable for Wikipedians. - jc37 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment Would you have a Wikipedia user category that says Wikipedians who don't have a third arm? Of course not, because that counts for almost everyone. The "does not use" category is not all-inclusive, since most people do not tend to use the category even if they do not use Internet Explorer. No, we are not Microsoft slaves. In fact, I'd say more people are in support of Linux than for Microsoft.--WaltCip 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) By the way, I like Internet Explorer. :P Therefore, it is NOT a fact, and that therefore nullifies you claim.[reply]
                  • I think the category should be deleted (not what KingpinE7 wants me to say!). I don't see any use in having the category.--wj32 03:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. "who don't use" per WaltCip. If we started adding everything that everyone doesn't use, Wikipedia would grind to a halt. That and it's a big "so what", really. There is no need to group people by what you don't use. As for "who hate", no, no, and no. Categories like that serve one purpose: to divide people. We are here for one reason, and one reason only: to write an encyclopedia. Grouping people by what they hate does not help anyone do that. If you must express your dislike for MS or IE, put a little paragraph on your userpage, or even better, your own website. Not a category. --Kbdank71 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - If you don't like IE, there's nothing wrong with saying so on your userpage, but what's the point in having a category for it? This doesn't help with editing the encyclopedia at all. —Cswrye 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mega delete. One could post a category-less, anti-IE message on their userpage. Also, this category plugs generalizations on people. Just because they don't use Internet Explorer doesn't mean they're totally against it. In addition, there are some who do use Internet Explorer still hate it, and just don't bother to get a new browser. If this category is kept, then are we going to classify Wikipedians who hate fairy tales, Dell desktops, province flags that have both blue and black, Scotch tape, Aishas, Weedles, etc.‽ (Okay, now I'm going a bit overboard.) --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interrobang. Interrobang. —ptk✰fgs 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 11[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Safari users[edit]

Category:Safari users into Category:Wikipedians who use Safari

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


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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 11:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Wikipedians[edit]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Destiny's Child, convention of Category:Wikipedians by musician. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename/merge--WaltCip 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 7[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with current projects[edit]

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


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (3D, 3R) (Update:Is now empty, so I've db'ed it.).--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Users supporting TRNC to category:Wikipedians who support Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recognition[edit]

To match other categories of category:wikipedians by politics.--Mike Selinker 16:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian "adoptions"[edit]

These have to change. I don't doubt the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program is useful, but it can't be confused with real adoption. Also, no categories about individual adoptors, please.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Users who do not exist[edit]

Amusingly recursive, but automatically false.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was struck out by Kingboyk. --Coredesat (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who have never gotten to first base[edit]

TMI.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - apparently already deleted. - jc37 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (5D, 4R).--Mike Selinker 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User +25000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits[edit]

To match rest of category:Wikipedians by number of edits.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. --Coredesat (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uninformative and per Hiding in MMORPG discussion.--WaltCip 16:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is too much emphasis on quantity rather than quality on Wikipedia already. I don't believe this edit count is in any way informative of the users' contributions or efforts and just serves as a competitive MMORPG-like "score".--Konst.able 19:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, editcountitis is bad, categorizing people with editcountitis is worse. --Cyde Weys 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde, and one could probably argue for the speedy deletion of Template:User 25 000e as a "divisive and inflammatory" template. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you come to that conclusion? - jc37 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply because it basically divides users by number of edits, hence, "divisive." I've always hated editcountitis, and this just serves to further it. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. You don't see this as divisive, you see "editcountitis" as divisive, and see this as a way of promoting/furthering editcountitis. I understand the perspective. And while I don't necessarily disagree with your main view, I don't think that this userbox itself promotes division. Thank you for clarifying. - jc37 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Per nom. It's really not devisive. Alphachimp 01:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side question. Just as a point of curiosity, how do people even know their own edit counts? Could the problem be that we have an encouragement built into the system there, rather than in the category system?--Mike Selinker 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, now I see: Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits. Woo-hoo, I'm number, um, 119! What a horrible thing. Well, I still don't think that's illegitimate, even if I find it obnoxious. I'll stick with my rename vote. Looks like it'll lock up as no concensus, which is kind of unfortunate given the naming convention of the category.--Mike Selinker 19:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde. Is there a cure, by the way?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was delete and already emptied.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mandarin user categories[edit]

categories moved in accordance with the code used by RFC 3066 and ISO 639-3 --Hello World! 09:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • These have already been emptied, so they can just be deleted now. Close and delete.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; Delete per MS : ) - jc37 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete old categories in favour of renaming. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 11:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

October 6[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete both.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who oppose Montenegrin independence[edit]

Added because of the following nomination. Please make comments about both in the next nomination.--Mike Selinker 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who oppose Chechen independence[edit]

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


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

The result of the debate was rename/delete per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by degree[edit]

Rename:

and delete:

I combined some that were clearly the same degree. The majority of these have no periods in their abbreviations, so I suggest none of them should. I'm happy to add the periods if people want, though. As for value, I think these are extremely useful for finding a helpful someone in a field that covers an article you wish to write, and I don't think they're divisive.--Mike Selinker 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. --kingboyk 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ditto. --Chris S. 14:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all with a couple of suggestions (explained below). I agree with Mike Selinker about the value of these categories. I know that many user categories have questionable usefulness, but I think that these have some of the most apparent value to the project. A person's academic credentials are a major factor relating to their knowledge about certain topics and their ability to edit them. This isn't to say that people without credentials are less about to write about topics, but academic degrees do provide an objective way to see where individuals' expertise may be. Now for my comments: 1) Personally, I like the periods in the abbreviations, but that's not a big deal. 2) I think that Category:User degree/default should be merged into Category:Wikipedians by degree. That way, people who don't want to specify what degree they have will just be in the parent category. Otherwise, I would say that it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians with unknown degrees. That seems to be consistent with other user category hierarchies where users don't specify what they are. 3) I would actually recommend deleting Category:User degree/minor. I don't think it's possible to get a degree in a minor. The userbox simply says "This user has a minor in foo", and the category seems to exist only in response to the userbox. —Cswrye 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, the replacement names would make more sense. --Coredesat (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with everything Cswrye says, but don't see how that makes the categorisation structure the best place to find a person's expertise. If I want to do that I go to their user page. Hiding Talk 20:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That's understandable, and I agree that categories shouldn't be used to just display information that could just as easily be mentioned on the user page. However, that requires you to already know about the user so you can get to their page. User categories have the advantage of helping you find users with a particular expertise when you might not otherwise know that the user even exists. —Cswrye 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hiding.--WaltCip 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename most'. I think most should be renamed, if the qualifications are degrees, but I know some aren't technically degrees. The PGCE for example, is not one I'd consider a degree. It is technically a postgrad certificate qualification. I think it would be odd to categorise this as a degree. There are probably others on the list which are technically not degrees too. Also, could 'BSc' be changed to 'BSc degree' and not 'BS degree', which it currently says in the list. Thanks Evil Eye 11:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, I agree with that. I think most WikiPedians would take 'BS degree' the wrong way.--WaltCip 13:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I amended PGCE and BS. (I've certainly seen BS used as the abbreviation more in the US, tho.) Let me know if there are others you think should be changed.--Mike Selinker 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all with the following exception: AAs should be renamed to AAS, per Associate's degree and Template:Academic degrees. - jc37 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. They looked different to me, but the article explains they're the same. I amended that one.--Mike Selinker 06:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to rename in general. However, I oppose the category merges without more consideration. For example, as can be seen from the templates, AAS and AAs are different degrees. Note again that most are populated from the template {{User degree/*}}. (The question of whether that template should populate categories is a separate, related question.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that I agree with this. For example, even though "BS" and "BSc" both stand for "Bachelor of Science", there may be differences between the degress that merit separate categorization. Also, someone who received a BS (which I'm pretty sure is more common in the United States) may not want to be categorized under a different abbreviation. I'm of the (not very strong) opinion that different abbreviations should be categorized differently. (I'm starting to reconsider whether we should use abbreviations for these at all since that would do away with this problem completely, but I'm not there yet.) As for the userbox, I believe that userboxes should be designed to accomodate user categories, not the other way around. —Cswrye 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is all reasonable to me. I amended all the merges to their original listing, and then if later anyone wants to try to merge them, that's fine.--Mike Selinker 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per above. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 01:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


October 4[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete "Massively," but no consensus on "massively".--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who play Massively multiplayer online games to category:Wikipedians who play massively multiplayer online games[edit]

Moved from speedy due to discussions.--Mike Selinker 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only one problem with that: there's no indication these are RPGs. There are lots of other types of MMOGs than RPGs, and the MMOG abbreviation is not as well known.--Mike Selinker 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've seen Planetside, and it's no RPG. If you took out the MMO part, would you think "First-person shooter" is a subcategory of "Roleplaying game"? I don't. (Plus, the abbreviation is really clunky. It should at least be "MMORPGs.")--Mike Selinker 00:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article. MMOFPSs are MMORPGs. Which makes sense, you're pretending that you are the shooter. No opinion on whether it should have a "s" at the end in the cat name. - jc37 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tag the main category and we'll have a discussion about it.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to delete the entire Category:Wikipedians who play computer and video games tree. There's a gaming WikiProject already, and they probably have a participants list or category/categories. This is redundant to that and has no additional enyclopedic or community benefit. --kingboyk 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, no. This is way too broad a group of users to expect to see in a WikiProject group. These preference categories are fine by me when they pertain to things lots of folks actually write about, like games.--Mike Selinker 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mike. We may as well delete Category:Wikipedians interested in games if we do that. Probably not a very popular idea, even if most of us are scholarly anti-technology literaturists.--WaltCip 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I disagree with saying "MMOFPRPSGs" are not "MMORPGs"; "Maybe we can create subcategories for each subgenre of MMOGs" sounds tolerable to me. - jc37 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sounding like a broken record, but why do I need a category to find all these people? Is Wikipedia a tool by which we find people who share the same interests as us or is it an encyclopedia? We have WikiProjects for shared interests which help build the Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've thought about this issue before, and while I agree that WikiProjects are the best method for collaboration, I believe that user categories fill a void that WikiProjects do not. I'm willing to explain why if you want me to, but I'll warn you that my explanations tend to be rather lengthy. —Cswrye 02:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who cares?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was already speedily deleted.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized[edit]

Recreation of deleted content.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete--WaltCip 00:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. —Cswrye 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who are fans of Red vs Blue to category:Wikipedians who like Red vs. Blue[edit]

To match current category.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and for brevity.--WaltCip 00:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was deleted and salted by User:Kbdank71.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian authors[edit]

We recently decided these were a bad idea. These seem to have been created since, so they should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and previous concerns of WP:OWN. - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc37.--WaltCip 00:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted, and protected. Can someone empty out the featured articles cat for me, I don't have time tonight. Thanks. --Kbdank71 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OWN doesn't apply. This is simply a badge of honour. (WP:OWN is concerned with not treating an article as exclusively one's own; it doesn't mean authors can't claim credit (a right under the GFDL) nor that they don't own the copyright in their work (they do)). However, a userbox is quite sufficient for boasting about an FA contribution so I have no objections. --kingboyk 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (that was basically a delete, by the way). --kingboyk 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really don't care whether or not these exist, but the consensus on the last nomination was pretty clearly a delete. If it is possible to salt categories, doing so may be necessary to keep these from being created again. —Cswrye 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean prevent recreation? I don't know if that's possible. They could probably be protected as regular pages are, but these aren't particularly troublesome categories really. If they get regularly recreated by different folks it might just be that the measure of "consensus" here, on this little outpost of Wikipedia, is simply wrong. Let's wait and see, I don't think action is needed just yet. --kingboyk 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's already been done (check the cats). They've already been recreated, that's why I protected them. --Kbdank71 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians not using IE[edit]

Per deletion of other anti-Internet Explorer category on September 24.--Mike Selinker 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, information not best presented through the category structure. Hiding Talk 20:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the cat, not the userbox/userpage info. - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion on the other IE category. —Cswrye 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We ought to be able to speedy these substantially the same cats I think. --kingboyk 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Cswrye.--WaltCip 01:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if users want to express that they don't use Internet Explorer, they can do it other ways. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was already deleted by Kingboyk. --Coredesat (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians who love Swedish Fish[edit]

Per deletion of other Swedish fish category on September 10.--Mike Selinker 20:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, information not best presented through the category structure. Hiding Talk 20:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the cat, not the userbox/userpage info. - jc37 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deleted this based on the mass deletion of "Wikipedians who eat..." categories (and acceptance of that closure at DRV). Community consensus shows these categories are not useful and are unwelcome. --kingboyk 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who use MSN Messenger[edit]

Not sure what's going on with this category (the template gained some new categories, which I removed in probable ignorance), but the new versions should clearly be renamed.--Mike Selinker 07:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom.--WaltCip 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I don't know about the CPNN one (since there are no current members) but the latter one seem to be from self-adding to the cat (rather than being a simple userbox fix). - jc37 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, information not best presented through the category structure. Hiding Talk 20:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Hiding, nominator said rename, not delete.--WaltCip 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't invalidate my thoughts on the issue. Categories are brought here for discussion. The nomination doesn't control the shape of the discussion. Hiding Talk 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct. It's not unusual for a "rename" discussion to end in deletion. --kingboyk 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Might consider deletion if the entire Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger is presented, but it would be arbitrary to just delete MSN. --kingboyk 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - It's perfectly acceptable to discuss deletions on a rename nomination, but I agree with kingboyk in that I don't like to arbitrarily delete certain categories just because they are nominated when many similar unnominated categories exist. —Cswrye 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you would want to delete if others were nominated, then say delete and nominate the others. Don't keep something around simply because something else isn't nominated. Talk to the merits of this category, not others. --Kbdank71 23:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'll make my case based on my own standards, and the closer can decide if I'm right or wrong when determining consensus :) This isn't a divisive category and although it's a bit trivial it's not a blatantly bad offender. As such, my opinion remains let it stay with a suitable name until we decide whether to be rid of the entire group or not. --kingboyk 11:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose (through clenched teeth) I might be persuaded to group list all of them today, if folks want them gone? --kingboyk 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not me. I'll be one solitary vote for keeping them all. Software is very germane to what we do here.--Mike Selinker 11:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How so? How is this germane, that someone uses MSN Messenger? Hiding Talk 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It means that it's likely that they know the "ins and outs" of the topic (MSN Messenger in this case). So they are more likely to know where to look for references about the topic, may be more aware of things like commercials, roll outs, and other media presentations; issues about bugs, versions and the like, and knowing where to look for supportive citations. (What good is it to know where to look, if you have no idea what to look for?) And something like this won't necessarily have it's own WikiProject. So yes, I think that these categories can be useful for collaboration. - jc37 01:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What jc said.--Mike Selinker 15:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see how that helps, to be honest. I would expect those people to already be watching the pages in question. No, I still would rather see these as deleted. Hiding Talk 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/October_2006&oldid=1142498857"