Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/January 2007

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | User‎ | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2007)
< December 2006 February 2007 >

January 31 edit

Category:Bushmills drinkers edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another food category, which we have historically deleted. If somehow kept, needs an indication that it is a Wikipedian category. VegaDark 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Aww, I like whiskey. Why do we have to delete food groups when we're keeping silly cartoons anyway? Can't we be interested in liquors? :) Xiner (talk, email) 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per precedence and the unspoken UCFD rules on food categories.--WaltCip 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't like the idea of unspoken rules. Wikipedia has so many pages of guidelines, if there's a consensus here, make it written. I, for one, do not agree with a blanket rule against foods. I don't see how a "Wikipedians interested in fruits", for example, can't be more helpful than "Wikipedians interested in Dragonball Z". Xiner (talk, email) 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We've had several CfDs in the past, and AFAIK, all of which resulted in deletion. However, the initial group nomination had several opposers for a part of it (alcohol, and I opposed the deletion of the restaurant ones), they seemed to only go due to it being a group nomination (for the most part). Obviously consensus can change. And the "unwritten rules", are actually "written" in the archives here and of WP:CFD. - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, I wasn't here when the food user cats got deleted. Since plenty of foods cats exist, however, I'd really, honestly appreciate if someone could explain the rationale for the deletions for me. I don't want to keep bringing up the same thing every time if there's a good reason for it. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite my above comments, Mike Selinker convinced me that "consumables" such as food and smiking should be deleted. - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is just as valuable as any other user category, definitely one to keep.Tellyaddict 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep? Under what criterion does this fall under to justify a speedy keep? VegaDark 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Wikipedians interested in liquors". Xiner (talk, email) 15:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another food category.--Mike Selinker 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian_Coburg_Tigers_fans edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (now empty).--Mike Selinker 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian Coburg Tigers fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: I'm the only wikipedian in this category. I didn't put meself there, Guv, tho I bear no grudges. I've been a Rip Van Winkle & have just woken up. Having woken, I put to youse all that I don't see the need for this category. It doesn't build a better encyclopedia. Having said that, Carna Burghers!!! (Come on, Coburg Tigers, excel!) Colonel Tom 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 30 edit

Category:Fed up Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fed up Wikipedians is a group of people that are fed up with others complaining about them spending time on Wikipedia. These users are not part of an eleborate scheme, they are just plain fed up. We are a group that shows that we are not afraid to show that we like Wikipedia. - This is a group created by the only person in the category. This should be deleted because if it were kept, it would justify creating a category for any made up group someone happens to create. Just as arbitrary as if someone created a group called "Bewildered Wikipedians" for people who are bewildered at the fact people some people don't like Wikipedia, and then creating a category. Potentially endless amount of groups one could create a category for if this were allowable. VegaDark 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be more supportive if they were venting frustration at Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per all of above. --John Lake 04:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete soapboxish nonsense.--WaltCip 11:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (sob at the poor downtrodden masses of Wikipedians... Standing up for their want, their very right to edit this thing we call WIkipedia...) - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would give wikipedia a bad reputation, not really one to keep.Tellyaddict 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fine. Go ahead, delete it. I really don't care. I guess that it's not a needed category. Fine. Zazzer
  • Since text does not display any emotion - and through that, there is no sarcasm towards the need to delete this category - I'm pushing for a WP:SNOW.--WaltCip 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, since creator of category (and only member to date) has agreed to the deletion. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who collect signatures of other Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A category of users who maintain guest books and the like on their user pages. Doesn't contribute to encyclopedia-building in any meaningful way, and hews a little close to MySpace-ish social networking. A Train take the 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Was eventually planning on nominating this myself. VegaDark 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator. Although apparently we cannot stop people from making these silly inventions, we can at least prevent them from polluting the category space with their silliness. I can imagine few things less productive than people going down through every page in the category and leaving their signature on each one. Thus, it should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT myspace. Xiner (talk, email) 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper. Pointless really. Our signatures are in a "goldfish bowl" already.--John Lake 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Another "cute" category, which actually may help collaboration in general, but not in specificity of topic. - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant, as well as per nom.Tellyaddict 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per all above. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 28 edit

Category:Wikipedians who speak North Germanic to category:User ngc edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete based on revised information.--Mike Selinker 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is named Template:User ngc, so I figured this should be.--Mike Selinker 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. VegaDark 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Delete per Jc37 below, turns out this isn't even a language. VegaDark 20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know that *en was kept and North Germanic users would probably recognize "ngc", and we really should standardize things, but I still have a hard to voting yes to an obscure name. Xiner (talk, email) 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the long run, I agree that all the language categories need to be renamed to Wikipedians who speak ______. But for now, it is even more confusing to not have it standardized. VegaDark 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the long-term solution, then I'd be even more inclined to say no. And I don't even know what is best. :) Xiner (talk, email) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, unless that isn't the ISO code, in which case rename to whatever the code is. If they have language family codes. -Amark moo! 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose rename - Why in the world would we change a perfectly human-readable category name into some messy abbreviation that no one is going to know without opening up the category page? --Cyde Weys 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because, despite attempts (by me and others) to destroy the Babel system, it is much stronger than any of us. I'd love to replace it with "Wikipedians who speak (X)" and have no designators by proficiency, but it ain't happening. So since it's not, having one outlier makes no sense at all.--Mike Selinker 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in light of new evidence, not only should its name not be changed, it should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that two of the Rename voters actually like this kind of naming. Imperfect reality is better than complete gibberish, I think, so I'll vote against renaming for now. Delete per jc37. Good point. Xiner (talk, email) 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to whatever to correct iso code is. - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok did some research on this. (See: this language tree as a visual aid.) It would seem that this is a grouping of languages, and not an actual language itself. (This would be like saying that I speak Romance language.) Changing to Delete, since it's not a language. - jc37 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - the babel system is something easier to follow and more systematic. --Deryck C. 14:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Not the best of names and it's very long. Tellyaddict 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Model_United_Nations_Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge (redundant).--Mike Selinker 15:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge from Category:Wikipedians in the Model United Nations. Xiner (talk, email) 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who oppose drugs edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The issue is too divided to lead to a delete, and no rename option has garnered enough support. Now that Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs will be created, these can be renominated for that purpose.--Mike Selinker

Perhaps we could create Category:Wikipedians who support drugs being illegal and Category:Wikipedians who support drugs being legal and merge all relevant drug categories to these two, OR just create Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs and merge all categories to this. I'd prefer the latter option as I think all the wikipedians by politics categories should be deleted in the long run. VegaDark 23:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about Category:Wikipedians interested in drug policy? Xiner (talk, email) 23:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the only reasonable solution. Until then, this is just another "not" or "oppose" category with no hope of facilitating collaboration and must be deleted. —ptk✰fgs 14:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Category:Drug-free Wikipedians, which I'd like to keep, even though it is described as "This is a listing of Wikipedia users who abstain from the use of recreational, non-medicinal drugs such as narcotics." I'm a nurse and narcotics for the most part are medicinal, non-recreational drugs which are sometimes abused. Dan D. Ric 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Dfrg.msc 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discount non explanatory merge vote.--WaltCip 11:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good category. Tellyaddict 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think people should do drugs either, but that's not the reason for the nomination. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought long and hard about this one. I believe it's a legitimate position for a political category, so the question comes down to whether it should be merged with "Drug-free" into an uber-category. To me, the two categories ("drug-free" and "oppose drugs") are meaningfully non-coterminous. It is possible to not do drugs and want them to be legal. It is also possible to want drugs to be illegal, but still use them (say, if one is a lapsed addict). I would argue that deleting "Drug-free" (and "Drug-using") is a good idea, but this one should not be merged into it, nor should it be deleted. I'd like to leave this open for a while to see what people think.--Mike Selinker 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - A quick read-through the votes here show that there is a consensus to delete this category.--WaltCip 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or not. And I'm pretty sure the admin can read and come to a conclusion independently. — coelacan talk — 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a political stance here, and it's not just a "not" category (by the way, I've still never seen a cogent defense of not-deletions). There's no reason for neutering Wikipedia of user political categories, and this one is useful for collaboration on drug-related articles as well as straight-edge-related and such. — coelacan talk — 10:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Drug-using Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians interested in drugs. There's enough support for a change, and not enough for a delete. --Mike Selinker

We don't need to reveal the illegal activities we do on Wikipedia. What's next, Wikipedians who steal? Wikipedian murderers? Personally I think some drugs should be legalized so don't think I am equating drug use with something as bad as murder, I am just trying to use an extreme example as to ask where we will draw the line with admitting to illegal activities through Wikipedia categories. Additionally, this can't really be used for collaboration because using a drug does not equal being more qualified to write about a drug other than first hand experience, which is against the no original research policy. I'd support a rename to to Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs, or delete if no consensus for that. VegaDark 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to to Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs, or delete if no consensus to rename. VegaDark 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs. Y'know, VegaDark is right. It's a consumer category, not a collaborative category, and maybe that should be our standard. The illegality argument is also strong. I'd say the nomination below should also be dependent on this one.--Mike Selinker 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. I created this category almost a year ago (I think from other categories that amounted to the same thing but were misnamed), before there was any consensus against this class of usercategories. Now that the landscape has changed, this usercategory isnt appropriate. I don't see the legality argument as relevant, as the title doesn't specify "Illegal drugs" even if some of the associated userboxes do (in which case the 'boxes should be changed, if anything). But if comparable other usercategories are also being deleted or changed into "interest"-type ones, this one should as well. -Silence 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename at worst. I still don't think legality is relevant, since some drugs are legal in some places, alcohol may be legal for minors in others, and even legal drugs can be misused. Xiner (talk, email) 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or rename as nominated. Whether drug use is legal is of dubious relevance, but comparing this to a theft or murder user category is silly. We have fan categories for television shows, which are generally assumed to facilitate collaboration. The only logical reason to conclude that a category of drug-using Wikipedians would not facilitate collaboration is if you believe that drug users are categorically illiterate, which is empirically denied. —ptk✰fgs 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder about the advisability of having such a category on here for several reasons. First, it might be construed as giving some Wikipedia institutional approval of this behavior or these views. Although this is a ludicrous conclusion to draw, there are those that will draw it, resulting in needless negative publicity for WP (although it would be naive to assume that there not supporters of various forms of legalization on WP as well as abusers). I also am ambivalent about the prudence of identifying and drawing attention to users who might reasonably be assumed to be potential abusers of illegal substances in a venue like WP. In many jurisdictions, now or in the future, police organizations might use WP as a resource. WP might be inviting subpoenas and other police and legal involvement, drawing time, money and energy away from other more productive pursuits. I would suggest that this is probably unavoidable, but the existence of blatant categories probably exacerbates the situation. I also would not want to invite legal and police surveillance of WP, and possibly regulation. I suggest that a "don't ask, don't tell" policy might be more reasonable. As an admittedly ridiculously-exaggerated example (pushing this sort of thing to its illogical extreme for semi-comic effect), I think that having a category like "Wikipedians who are child molestors" could potentially result in negative publicity for WP, and could result in legal entanglements and complications and expenses. In some cultures in some places at some times in human history, intergenerational sex was the norm and accepted and condoned (after all, what age allegedly was the Prophet Mohammed's wife Aisha when they met and were married?). However, at the moment, this is not the case in a large number of important jurisdictions, and it would probably not be a good idea to appear to be promoting this behavior or connected with it in any way. So, is it a good idea to have this category at all, given the current posture of many of the world's dominant powers? (which I find sort of hypocritical, given the US and UK past involvement in things like the Chinese Opium Wars).--Filll 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with those who don't believe in this analogy, but you may want to take a look at the nomination above this one and vote on it. Xiner (talk, email) 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Dfrg.msc 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With what argument? UCFD is not a poll.--WaltCip 12:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely per nom. This would put the reputation of wikipedia down.Tellyaddict 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's certainly got potential for collaboration, and legality is not an issue since there are many places in the world where "drugs" are legal (including, actually, everywhere, depending on what one means by that word). I don't think legality is an issue ever on Wikipedia... I can advertize on my user page that I support the abolishment of patents and civil disobedience against current patent law, and this is hardly of concern to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 10:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User high into Category:Drug-using Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians interested in drugs based on above discussion.--Mike Selinker

Only two users, and not different from Drug-using Wikipedians. Dependent on what happens with above category.--Mike Selinker 07:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. (moved other comments to above nom) VegaDark 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant category. And VegaDark, if you want to delete Category:Drug-using Wikipedians, nominate it separately.  Grue  10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to its own nomination above. VegaDark 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Can't get high without using drugs, usually. Xiner (talk, email) 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per nom. Dfrg.msc 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grue.--John Lake 04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge duplicated category scope. — coelacan talk — 10:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with over 1 edits edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea for a joke. Nonsense, does not facilitate collaboration, includes almost all wikipedians. VegaDark 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly even speedy delete, as nominator. VegaDark 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually would include every wikipedian, as it takes 1 edit to add the template to one's userpage. Delete as there would be the definite possibility of becoming too large.--Wizardman 00:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's 'more than one edits', you'd need 2 edits to qualify no? Anyway, Delete - encourages new users to count edits, which I don't like one bit. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See User:Poorleno, the page of the category's creator. It's innundated with humour, which is fine, and it would seem obvious that the userbox that populates this is also intended for humourous purpose. I support the use of humour in the wikipedian cummunty and such, however, with only a very few exceptions, consensus has been to remove categories intended for humourous effect. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who think that Wikipedia is just AWESOME edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One user, does not facilitate collaboration, sillyness. VegaDark 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Really. Xiner (talk, email) 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure how this could possibly help the project. -Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Userboxcruft/sillyness.--Wizardman 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - great userbox, no need for the category. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People wouldn't be here if they didnt like wikipedia so there is no need for a category.Tellyaddict 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 27 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think Mozilla Firefox sucks edit

Another "not" category. Cannot be used for collaboration. VegaDark 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really. Xiner (talk, email) 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hate categories don't get us anywhere.... Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reminiscent of the recent xbox/ps2 preference (and lack thereof) discussions. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del per nom Dfrg.msc 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "not" category, also, only one member Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian descendants of Confederate soldiers edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians interested in the Confederacy.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not facilitate collaboration, only category of its kind. VegaDark 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userbox->What links here... Xiner (talk, email) 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's as useful as any of the other ethnicity/nationality categories (though there may be a mass rename/merge nomination in the near future : ) - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the context - Is it a joke category or is it genuine?--WaltCip 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a joke category, but only the creator of one of the userboxes actually belongs in it. Xiner (talk, email) 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It apparently wasn't a "joke category" when up for discussion previously (which resulted in its current name). - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, do we allow creation of Category:Wikipedian descendants of Nazis? VegaDark 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Confederacy isn't about racism, remember? Xiner (talk, email) 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying it is, I am simply stating that the argument of "as useful as any of the other ethnicity/nationality categories" would apply to that as well, would it not? VegaDark 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an appropriate Confederate history user category. People with personal interests in American history are groups we should be encouraging to collaborate. —ptk✰fgs 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed there's one: Category:Confederacy_Defenders_of_Wikipedia. I don't think the delete votes will mind a merge? Xiner (talk, email) 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a different concept myself. A person can feel that their ancestor fought in the Confederacy for well-intentioned reasons, or at least ones that seemed well-intentioned to them, but at the same time not be a defender of the Confederacy. I don't think it's uncommon for a person to have a "support the troops, but not the war" attitude.--T. Anthony 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I wouldn't mind a merge between the two. However I do think the category needs a more suitable name than "Confederacy Defenders of Wikipedia". Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in the Confederacy? VegaDark 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Put it on your to-do list. :) Xiner (talk, email) 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the closing admin closes this as merge to that category, which is fine with me, then I will nominate that category for renaming. It would be too confusing having both of these going at the same time. VegaDark 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Typophiles edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This user is a typophile." As you can see, typophile doesn't have an article, so this category is not useful for collaboration. No indication as to what a typophile even is. VegaDark 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Card Playing Fools edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These are the members of the Card Playing Fools who edit Wikipedia". As you can see, card playing fools doesn't have an article, so this category is not useful for collaboration. Only two people in the category, so I am assuming this is some sort of inside joke or non-notable club they formed. VegaDark 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, i can't see this category being of interest/use to anybody but the two users who are in it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't seem to find a reference to the term, it sounds like it could be the name of a ladders group on some card-based website. the fact that both users also have a poker userbox would seem to lend credence to this. However, I don't think that group membership on another website is a good trend to start ("We're members of the blah-blah guild on everquest", etc.) - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only conceivably useful for assisting collaboration on a non-notable card playing club. —ptk✰fgs 22:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Bullshitters edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underpopulated, no explanation as to what this category might be used for. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who support the Toronto Maple Leafs edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy upmerge.--Mike Selinker 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A subcategory of Category:Wikipedian Toronto Maple Leafs fans, no need for two categories. No other teams have a subcategory like this, should be upmerged. VegaDark 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian that hates the Chicago Cubs edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a "not" category.--Mike Selinker 16:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's the hate that bothers me. Xiner (talk, email) 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don't think all 'not' categories should be blanked deleted, but the 'hates this, hates that' ones have no place here :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Besides the concerns above, the name of the category seems to indicates that it should have only a single member : ) - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia doesn't need "hating users" categories. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have never left their country edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies as a "not" category to me. I don't see how this would facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 07:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who hate MySpace edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 07:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 07:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's the hate that bothers me. Xiner (talk, email) 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don't think all 'not' categories should be blanked deleted, but the 'hates this, hates that' ones have no place here :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I disagree with calling this a "not" category, however, "hate" categories should be renamed or deleted. I don't see the purpose for this category even if renamed. ("Wikipedians critical of MySpace"? - I don't see the use of it...) - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While we all have a civic duty to promote hatred of MySpace, this category cannot facilitate collaboration in any meaningful way. —ptk✰fgs 22:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unrelated to WikipediaGutworth 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm against every hate category. Wikipedia doesn't need such categories. And we should try to don't hate, of course ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who dislike the PlayStation 3 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate of other VGS cats. Xiner (talk, email) 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don't think all 'not' categories should be blanked deleted, but the 'dislikes this, dislikes that' ones have no place here :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't like the trend this would start. "Wikipedians who dislike x" - where "x" is equal to some game system, or software package, or even just any object. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's indisputable that the PS3 is the "sucker box" of the current generation, this category does not facilitate collaboration. —ptk✰fgs 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Yes, I am the creator of this category. I would just like to say that I thought for a long time about creating this, and after I saw another "dislike" article, I made this decision. Jc37, the trend has already started. Deletion is okay with me, but keep the userbox running. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm against every hate category. Wikipedia doesn't need such categories. And we should try to don't hate, of course ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 14:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who create their own userboxes edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it helps to categorize users into this. I could possibly see a category for people willing to make userboxes for other people, but that isn't what this is. VegaDark 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a difference between being a coder and supporting an issue. - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like the signature shops. Advertises a crude mastery of Wikimarkup but fails to facilitate collaboration on the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the premise that suggests that userboxes do not facilitate collaboration on Wikipedia. (That's near to saying that all the categories under the purview of this page should be deleted, for the same reasons.) - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Jc. It seems very worthwhile, as someone looking for advice on making userboxes can go to someone in the category. I'll close this as no consensus, but I wouldn't mind seeing it up again in a while.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who believe their userboxes may be deleted edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underpopulated, unhelpful. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 06:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So many userboxes exist, there's probably a very good reason when one is deleted. Not a philosophy. Xiner (talk, email) 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first sentence, you might want to read Logical fallacy. I disagree with your second sentence. (I'll explain why, if you're interested.) - jc37 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paranoia.--WaltCip 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians named Person of the Year edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as re-creation.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad attempt at recreating the previously deleted Category:Wikipedians who are TIME Persons of the Year 2006. Includes all Wikipedians by default so it should be deleted, also does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator, possibly speedy delete. VegaDark 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. WP:CSD G4 - recreation of a deleted template without passing a valid deletion review process. All Wikipedians were named the "Person of the Year" for 2006, so this appears to be a joke. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought the TIME thing was a sham, so this can't be that useful. Xiner (talk, email) 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 26 edit

Category:Darnassian Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (empty except for unused template).--Mike Selinker 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Darnassian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This user comes from Darnassus. Darnassus is a fictional city in Blizzard Entertainments video game series Warcraft" - Can't be true, does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ot-0 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 13:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User ot-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This user would not like to know any more languages." - Very definition of a "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration in any way, category not helpful in any way. VegaDark 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userbox stuff. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - perhaps useful as a userbox (though I'm dubious), but not as a category. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a "not" category that is no more useful than simply placing the appropriate Babel boxes on one's user page. —ptk✰fgs 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User ot-N edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 13:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User ot-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This user knows all languages, and is most likely Dr. Daniel Jackson." Joke category, can't be true, does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator VegaDark 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke cat. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete - As it's technically impossible to know "all" languages... Sooo, this is a "cute" category that, like the others, should go. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a joke category that's not even funny. —ptk✰fgs 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quite funny though, unlike what ptk suggests. --Deryck C. 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 25 edit

Category:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.--Mike Selinker 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an indication this is a Wikipedian category. Speedy Rename. VegaDark 02:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and close immediately. This is a no-brainer and probably doesn't even warrant a debate here. —ptk✰fgs 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians trying to write their name in other langauges edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians trying to write their name in other langauges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I fail to see the need to make this into a category any more than Category:Wikipedians trying to write their name backwards needs to be made. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping this if that was the case (with a possible rename), but I don't think it is when you look all the pages in this category. VegaDark 23:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:ILIKEIT is an essay, and as such may be used to help express an opinion, not to suggest that it's policy that all need follow. WP:POINT is clear that its application requires that Wikipedia be disrupted, which I don't think this does. And I would be curious which entry under WP:NOT you feel that this ascribes to. My point here (which is also, in my opinion, not disruptive, but hopefully educational), is that WP:BITE might be a bit more relevant here. Bandying acronyms as a stick to poke others might not be seen as "helpful discussion". I presume that you mean well, and that you meant no incivility, but I thought you'd appreciate a friendly notice : ) - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My comments above aside, we already have linguistic-based categories, and due to the rather narrow inclusion criteria, I don't think we should even merge to those. - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who care about the homeless edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the homeless.--Mike Selinker 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another category everyone should be considered part of by default. Also, we don't have an article titled Caring for the homeless, so it does not facilitate collaboration. For those of you who would argue that it facilitates collaboration on the homeless article, this category would have to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in the homeless which would not be in the spirit of this category's creation, although I would be willing to rename it to that if that is what consensus decides. VegaDark 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Category:Wikipedians interested in homeless issues". Xiner (talk, email) 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. However I don't think this is the same as the violence against women. It's not especially uncommon for people to have no interest in the homeless or think they're losers/lunatics who deserve no sympathy.--T. Anthony 11:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - though perhaps not to that name (homelessness?). Do we have a related article? - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be misinterpreted as people who want to be homeless though. Xiner (talk, email) 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Define "homeless". We have panhandlers here in Gainesville who wear basketball shoes.--WaltCip 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read Homelessness. Several definitions, including dictionary and legal definitiions. - jc37 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User en-∞ edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User en-∞ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This user contributes in English at a godlike level". Joke category, does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userbox material. Xiner (talk, email) 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I want to know is, how do you contribute a "godlike" level of English. How do we even know that God speaks English? He could be Hebrew.--WaltCip 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, user categories aren't supposed to be jokes. -Amark moo! 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather, umm, "arbitrarily subjective", to say the least : ) - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I allows me to find people who are unhumble of their English. It's just as useful as Category:Married Wikipedians.Mike92591 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The talk page of the category gives a brief explanation of what it was originally created for. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I thee smite, blasphemers. —ptk✰fgs 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Battlestar Wiki edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians who like Battlestar Galactica.--Mike Selinker 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Battlestar Wiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Battlestar Wiki article was deleted almost two years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki, so this does not facilitate collaboration. If this were kept it would justify creation of Category:Wikipedians who contribute to any other non-notable Wiki that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on.VegaDark 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the Battlestar Wiki a part of Wikia? - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that relevant? According to Wikia they have over 1,500 wikis as of 6 months ago, and each of them can't be notable enough for a page. If it is notable enough, that is for deletion review or another AfD to decide if the article is recreated. As it stands, even if Battlestar Wiki is now notable enough for an article, the fact remains that there is not currently an associated article so that alone should mean this category should be deleted, and allow recreation if an article is ever made. VegaDark 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There probably is a place for a user category for people who contribute to BSG-related articles, but certainly not for people who contribute to a non-notable Wiki. —ptk✰fgs 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Wikipedians who like Battlestar Galactica. No need to delete it when we have a good alternative.--Mike Selinker 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I'm suprised that category doesn't already exist. VegaDark 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 23 edit

Category:Wikipedians who use MusicianDictionary.com edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination initially made by CiaranG, at CFD, transferred here. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use MusicianDictionary.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category apparently exists solely to promote a non-notable wiki site. CiaranG 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it, I'm not sure - it's not in the Category:Wikipedians hierarchy though. CiaranG 10:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move nomination to UCFD. I'd assume any category beginning "Wikipedians who..." would be a User category. --tjstrf talk 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional device. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#musiciandictionary.com for the background on this domain and how we came to get 30 of their links. --A. B. (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like spam. Xiner (talk, email) 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, smells like spam. —ptk✰fgs 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we don't have an article on MusicianDictionary.com, then categorizing users into this category is useless. VegaDark 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Umm...tastes like spam. Its only purpose is to advertise the website. –Llama man 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Sure, there are alternatives, but they're not necessary since this category shouldn't exist in the first place.--WaltCip 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Blatant spam. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 21 edit

Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge into category:Smoking Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes into Category:Smoking Wikipedians
  • Merge, Underpopulated, nothing on the Cat page. Xiner (talk, email) 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, or Delete if the smoking category is deleted. VegaDark 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, can this be speedily merged? Xiner (talk, email) 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shroom Using Wikipedians and Category:Heroin Using Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge into category: Drug-using Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered with Category:Drug-using Wikipedians. We don't need a different category for every drug, do we? I would say merge, but both these categories are empty except for the userbox. VegaDark 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as nominator. VegaDark 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only if the nicotine smoking cat is deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 06:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Category:Drug-using Wikipedians is more than sufficient. —ptk✰fgs 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Category:Drug-using Wikipedians it is then. Question: Does deleting the cat mean members are automatically upmerged? Xiner (talk, email) 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no members, except for the userboxes, which would obviously have to be changed to not include people in that category. VegaDark 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you clarify the latter part of that statement? I was also asking about in general. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I am assuming that since the userbox is in the category, that adding that userbox to a page automatically will add that page to these categories, like many userboxes do. I didn't actually check, however, so I could be wrong. As for a deleted category, upmerging in this instance would put any members into the "Wikipedians by lifestyle" category, since these aren't even subcategories of the Drug-using Wikipedians category. Most commonly though, no, I suspect the category is simply deleted. But if it is an obvious case of upmerging then the closing admin may very well do that. VegaDark 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. Well, I'll be bold and add the two cats to the drug-using cat. I hope that's ok. As for userboxes, I know that they themselves may not belong to any category, but can be coded to put any page that includes them in specified categories. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. It's fine to just delete the cats now. Xiner (talk, email) 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that reject violence against women edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. Does anybody support violence against women? Yet another category everybody should be in by default, so is not helpful to categorize users into this. VegaDark 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surprise! There are plenty of people who support violence against women. See the citations in An-Nisa, 34 for one sort of example. Just grabbing the first user in this category, User:Calupict, we see that this user is also a member of Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal, so it may actually make sense for this user to self-differentiate and declare an opposition toward such violence. There are actually many societies still in existence today where it is notable and even a minority view to oppose violence against women. Sorry you had to learn this. Anyway, the category is obviously useful for collaboration on matters pertaining to domestic violence, rape, forced prostitution, female genital mutilation, etc. The list is unfortunately quite long. — coelacan talk — 09:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of cultures that view violence against women as an unfortunate necessity but I don't think they would consider themselves people that support violence against women. But upon looking at this closer, I do realise that "support" wouldn't be exactly correct as an opposite category, it would be "accept". If this is kept, it justifies creation of Category:Wikipedians that accept violence against women. Do we want that? VegaDark 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not true according to the rules for Wikipedia. Xiner (talk, email) 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What rule are you referring to? VegaDark 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a NOT category. No particular reason to have this one and not corresponding categories for opposing theft, murder, adultery, swearing, the draft, and anything else considered a sin or bad thing by some group. Alternately, merge to a Category:Wikipedians interested in women's rights if such a thing exists. --tjstrf talk 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Active opposition to something is not a "not" category (even if that wasn't just a deletionist excuse). To oppose vivisection is an active stance, to oppose slavery was an active stance, to oppose segregation was an active stance, to oppose violence against women is an active stance. It is about what you do, not merely what you don't do. — coelacan talk — 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remain civil, keep your discussion focused on the argument (not the arguer), and remember that deletionism is a constructive ideology which aims to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Well put, Coelacan. So was that a Keep vote from you? Genital mutilation, anyone? (Personally, I'd like to see user categories by editing interests only, but that's not gonna happen, so I'm going to vote against this kind of nominations, which I believe favor some over others.) Xiner (talk, email) 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although possibly you could have a category for people involved in domestic violence counseling or support, but that'd be a different thing. The idea that Muslims have a greater need to say they oppose violence against women may have a certain logic, but seems potentially inflammatory. It'd be like saying we need Category:Wikipedians who reject the Curse of Ham theory because there are still a few small Christian groups that use it to justify racism.--T. Anthony 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A handful of Muslims are hardly the only ones. See Domestic discipline (lifestyle) [1] [2] — coelacan talk — 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOT category violation. Highly POV.--WaltCip 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be a violation, if only you could find such a rule to violate first. Where's this elusive rule that everyone's referring to but no one's presented? Xiner (talk, email) 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I admit, we may not even have these rules, at least I couldn't find any guidelines specifically for user categories. But a rule isn't the only thing we can go off of, past precedent and using one's best judgement is what we can use. Perhaps writing these up should be a priority. VegaDark 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's only the rule for certain Wikipedians, as the discussions on this page clearly shows. Xiner (talk, email) 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a rule, and no one should refer to it as such. It's the result of an agreement to delete all the categories with this description that existed on September 24 (Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#The "not" categories). The basis for the deletion is that it is possible to collaborate about something, but it is much harder to collaborate about the absence of something. I think in some cases (perhaps "non-smoking," below) you could make a philosophical exception, as the negative stance is something with a deep history. But for most (like this one), it's just a negative restatement of a globally positive position, and will get a delete vote from me. Which this just did.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_user_categories, the abandoned guidelines, state that "not" cats are to be deleted, but if you can't have a pro- cat for that issue on Wikipedia, then they are allowed. Both of these noms fit the criteria. So the issue isn't really as clear-cut as some people are making it out to be. But that's not gonna make a diff, is it? Xiner (talk, email) 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • See also Wikipedia:Userboxes about "not" user categories. (Though the question of whether a supporter/critic of a question or issue category is to be considered a "not" category has been discussed previously, with variant results.) - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The implication is that people who do not categorize themselves under this are indifferent to violence against women at the least, which is bad. Making a category like "Wikipedians who study/are interested in violence against women" would be fine, but that's not what this is. -Amark moo! 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is implying anything. If you don't include yourself as a Republican Wikipedian, are you automatically assumed not to be? You can only assume that people who included themselves in this category care particularly about the subject. Xiner (talk, email) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... yes, actually, the category for Republican Wikipedians does imply that people who are not in it are not Republican. That's fine, though, because being not Republican isn't necessarily bad. "Not X" categories imply both that people not in it are X and that being X is undesirable. -Amark moo! 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sexism should not be tolerated.  Grue  21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept, I suggest moving from Category:Wikipedians that reject violence against women to Category:Wikipedians who reject violence against women. POV may be debateable, but grammar is not! — Editor at Large(speak) 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another "not" category that's not useful for facilitating collaboration. Every Wikipedian is in this category by default. —ptk✰fgs 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sexist. Sometimes women need a good punching. Seriously, though, this feels like a soapbox for people to stand on and make them better than everyone not in it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sexist and irrelevant "not" category. Mfb52 09:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, possibly even speedyable. VegaDark 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROTFL this is of course, a category for people who are members of m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. Sparsely populated, though, odd, I'd have hoped to see more en.wikipedia members. At any rate, nomming a (possibly opposing) deletion-type-association category for deletion is somewhat... ironic? Oh, and Speedy Keep, naturally. --Kim Bruning 04:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a member of Wikipedians For The Swift And Unilateral Deletion Of Articles And Other Miscellany That Can Be Regarded To The Average Person As Bollocks (WFTSAUDOAAOMTCBRTTAPAB). JuJube 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, an "average" person might consider a PM machine "bollocks" but if it's notable enough, well... alas, this category is just useless acronymcruft. 74.38.35.171 05:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WFTSAUDOAAOMTCBRTTAPAB's ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to its newsletter. —ptk✰fgs 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. redundant. --Bduke 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medium biased Keep with pinch of uncertainty and wonder of where to go. As the founder of this group I have a bias to keep this. I also know that if it is deleted I will have no where to go for moral support... per the categories role it is the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike People That Delete Their New Article Edits Without Prior or After Discusion, Now Needing Some Moral Support to Help Cope with the Chocking Stress, Frustration, Sadness, Eventual Maturation and Acceptance, and Who Feal They Still Have Important Information to Add to an Article." If this is deleted where do I go? Where is the redundant category? Can someone please tell me where a similar group is? My cyclepat emotions might just snap? (or I could be kidding!... Yah I think I'm kidding) --CyclePat 04:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check out Wikipedia:Reach out. VegaDark 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to check out the WP:ESP deletions.--WaltCip 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above, it's redundant with Category:Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. —ptk✰fgs 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 20 edit

Category:Non-Japanese Wikipedians who play Japan-only games to Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive computer and video games edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive computer and video games.--Mike Selinker 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a problem because of its name. Why does it matter that the people that play Japan-only games are non-Japanese? I suggest renaming it as opposed to upmerging since we have a List of Japan exclusive computer and video games that can justify an expectation of collaboration from this category. VegaDark 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who challenge double standards edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another category that should include everyone. Also does not help the encyclopedia by categorizing editors into this because it doesn't facilitate collaboration in any way I can think of. VegaDark 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid category.--WaltCip 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this silly category, but keep any silly category I happen to like. (Sorry, I couldn't resist) CiaranG 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think that this category was created in response to a specific double standard as perceived by its creator, but that just makes it also a vaguely defined category : ) - jc37 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fans to Category:Wikipedians who like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Removed "the" due to previous discussions (Transformers, for example) - jc37 14:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to previous "fans" discussions.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename I prefer "Wikipedians who watch...", don't understand why it's not, but what the hey. Xiner (talk, email) 15:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are Numberwang to Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang.--Mike Selinker 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though for watchers of the show, these are apparently identical, for our category system they are not. So we should use our normal TV nomenclature.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 19 edit

Category:PT Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge into category:User pt, and delete empty categories.--Mike Selinker 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:PT Wikipedians to Category:User pt. As far as I can tell it is a dupicate of Category:User pt. VegaDark 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Read-Only Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete --Tone 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by logic. The people who belong in this category, won't add themselves to it. And once they do, they will no longer qualify. Therefore it is quite properly (and permanently) empty, and as such it should be be deleted. Fun idea though ... -- Prove It (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians who drink tea edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. VegaDark 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies as a food category to me, which we have historically deleted. VegaDark 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, which I just realized this was. VegaDark 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can't find a related Wikipedians by interest cat. Xiner (talk, email) 19:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serves no purpose for improving the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians and Category:Smoking Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus - If renominated, I might suggest nominating them separately. - jc37 14:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a potentially controversial one since there are a lot of users in this category, but this is the very definition of a "not" category. We do no have an article about not smoking, so this can't facilitate collaboration. We have an article about smoking, so Category:Smoking Wikipedians could in theory be justified in that regard (although I would disagree that someone being a smoker makes them more qualified to collaborate on an article about smoking than someone who doesn't smoke, which keeping that category for that reason would imply) but I particularly think this category is useless.

I can foresee justifications for keeping this such as "people who identify themselves as non-smokers can contribute to the smoking article just as much as people who identify themselves as smokers" but if we used that logic then categorizing people in either category would be useless since everyone is either a smoker or a non-smoker. The bottom line here is that categories in Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle should somehow be beneficial to Wikipedia (i.e. facilitate collaboration or give editors useful information about how to deal with other editors on Wikipedia), and I don't feel this category does either.

I wouldn't be opposed to also deleting the smoking category, since as I said above, the notion that someone being a smoker would make them more qualified or more likely to be able to contribute to the smoking article than a non-smoker is a weak one. I'd also be open to merging the two into Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on smoking related topics but I know that wouldn't be in the spirit of these categories' creation. Even if this doesn't result in a delete consensus I still think it would be beneficial to discuss the ground rules of categories in Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. If this is kept, does it justify creation of Category:Non-drinking Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians who don't eat red meat? VegaDark 07:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep. The logic above doesn't quite work for me. We have category:Vegetarian Wikipedians, which is a lifestyle choice. But it's also a "not" category, as it is defined by the absence of meat, not the addition of (say) tofu. I think as long as the category defines a very common, easily worded choice (in a way that "Non-chocolate-eating Wikipedians" would not), it might be OK.--Mike Selinker 08:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case though we have the Vegetarianism article, so the category can be used for collaboration. VegaDark 08:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And also the smoking ban article.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but that's just unfair. The reason there's no "no smoking" article is because of the Wikipedia avoidance of forks -- people who don't smoke contribute to the health hazards part of the "smoking" article. So your logic should dictate that we merge the two cats. And did the presence of the "heroin" article prevent you from nominating the user cat for deletion? (As you can see, I sometimes don't agree with your politics, VegaDark, but I admire your workrate and wish there were more Wikipedians like you. I think sometimes we need to say that.) Xiner (talk, email) 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using that logic, however, would allow people to categorize themselves as people who don't like any article topic that has a "criticisms" section on it, because people that don't like the topic of the article could help collaborate on that section. And yes, I did say I would support merging the two into Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on smoking related topics. As for nominating the heroin category even though there is an article for it, I did think about that. But personally I think the entire drug-using Wikipedians category should be deleted, I don't think we need to go about admitting the illegal things we do on Wikipedia even if it means collaboration. I'll leave that discussion for another time though. Basically, my "politics" consists of me looking through all the categories and targeting all the ones that I don't believe help Wikipedia for deletion. As you can see many people seem to agree with me so I can't be too far out in left field. VegaDark 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is not censored. I don't see why the smoking of one addictive and harmful substance is allowed when others aren't. Smoking can also be illegal. Xiner (talk, email) 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's absurd to nominate this category and not Category:Smoking Wikipedians. There is no difference between "not" categories and other categories, as it is just basic logic that any category as all may be delineated either by what lies within its boundary or what lies outside. Thus "vegetarians" can be thought of as people who do not eat meat, or as people who do eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. All this focus on "not" categories is logically spurious. — coelacan talk — 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have historically deleted "not" categories as not facilitating collaboration. It doesn't benefit anyone to know the things we don't do, i.e. Category:Wikipedians not interested in something or Category:Wikipedians who don't do something because categorizing people by this is not helpful to Wikipedia. However, for things like Vegetarianism that can be looked at differently since, although a not category, in this case not doing something has an article so it can be used for collaboration. VegaDark 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm familiar with what you've historically deleted. I just think there's a bogus argument behind it. One can describe omnivorous people as "non-vegetarians" or "people who don't eat dirt" and these are just as valid descriptions. Every category of anything can be described from both the inside and outside of its boundary. Thus "non-smokers" are equally "people who prefer to breathe clean air". Every category has a equivalent "not" description, and vice versa. Thus you end up simply discriminating on the basis of common language. Because "non-smokers" do not have their own normative word that sums up "people who prefer to breathe clean air", they get their category taken away. But this is not about the logic inherent in the category, it's purely a side-effect of the quirks of common English usage. If there happened to be a normative word for clean-air-breathers, they would get to keep their category. But that hypothetical word is precisely equivalent to "non-smoker" from a logical standpoint. The enforcement of language quirks does not help Wikipedia either. I think it's merely a convenient excuse for zealous deletionism. — coelacan talk — 10:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "non-smoking", self-identification as a non-smoker is necessarily a "not" category, something which we universally remove. Coelacan's characterization of non-smokers as people who prefer clean air is just plain silly. It's not a quirk of the English language that the word we use for "people who do not smoke" is only available as a "non-" word. A "non-" word is the formation that precisely and accurately nails the sense for which it is intended! Supporters of clean air and conservation are an entirely different category and have no relation to non-smoking or smoking. —ptk✰fgs 16:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep or Delete both I thought only userboxes shouldn't say not. Could you point me to the rule for user categories? In any case, unlike vegetarians, who differ among themselves, smoking and non-smoking are two clearly defined groups that are but opposites of each other. If you delete this one, delete the other one too. The nominator says he'd be fine with deleting the smoking category, so I think it should be nominated for discussion too. Xiner (talk, email) 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of listing the smoking category for deletion, so we can discuss both at the same time, before too many other votes are cast. Personally, I don't think either categories help collaboration. Xiner (talk, email) 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Ptk, I knew somebody would deliberately mistconstrue my point. Language aside, you simply cannot deny that from a logical standpoint, every category can be defined either by what it encloses or what it excludes. "People who prefer to breathe clean air" is of course not a precise description of the category "non-smokers", and requiring such a precise description is irrelevent to the fact. This is simple. "A" is a category. "A" is equal to "not(not(A))". But "not(not(A))", by your use of language, is what you call a "not" category, and therefor subject to deletion. And "not(A)" can always be defined as "B", which is suddenly now not a "not" category. Logically, all categories, all delineations, may be described as categories or "not" categories. This cannot be used as an excuse for deletion, because it applies in all cases and is thus useless. Whether or not a language has a convenient "B" for any particular "not(A)" is irrelevent to the fact. Now Xiner has nominated smokers as well. But there is still no apparent argument for deletion here. These categories do not hurt Wikipedia, so there is no reason to get rid of them. — coelacan talk — 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that defining A as not(not(A)) is silly and artificial, and that no one would ever use language in such an inefficient way. "I do not smoke" is clear-cut. It's a categorization based on what one doesn't do or doesn't like, and we universally delete those. —ptk✰fgs 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it interesting that we may delete a food group but keep a drug group. Xiner (talk, email) 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I see no reasons for deleting food groups either. But I have a limited amount of energy to apply to these discussions. — coelacan talk — 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. They do not assist in collaboration and thus do not assist in building an encyclopedia. We do not care or need to now about the lifestyle choices of Wikipedians. There are other user categories that should go also. --Bduke 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serve no useful purpose in improving the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification I asked this before but haven't gotten a response, so here I go again (sorry). Where is the rule that says "not" categories are to be deleted? I only find one for userboxes. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my response in the "Wikipedians who reject violence" nomination above. I think this one COULD stay despite that principle, but it doesn't seem like it will.--Mike Selinker 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is like the New York Lotto...hey, you never know. Xiner (talk, email) 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I don't want to know if you're smoking. All you're doing is putting foul-smelling air into the atmosphere.--WaltCip 12:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 17 edit

category:Wikipedians who like Spices edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in cooking.--Mike Selinker 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, it could be renamed category:Wikipedians interested in spices, but it seems like a food category to me.--Mike Selinker 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in cooking for now, and suggest Category:Wikipedians interested in herbs and spices for future creators. Xiner (talk, email) 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in cooking. I'd consider the nom merge if the category wasn't so vague. It may be wise to notify the creator.--WaltCip 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Gemologists edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename per creator.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to broaden the category a bit.--Mike Selinker 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as creator of both cat's this is fine. I will redirect pages once merge is done. SauliH 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need for redirection? Categories aren't usually redirected. Xiner (talk, email) 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If needed with any cleanup after merge - one category derives from a template transclusion (if I remember correctly. Ok with Speedy merge. SauliH 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Speedy merge since creator has no objections? VegaDark 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 12 edit

Category:Wikipedians crazy about Sourdough bread edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians crazy about Sourdough bread (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Another food category. VegaDark 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator, wouldn't be opposed to speedy deleting this either. VegaDark 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - funny, the creator of this category is related (brother) to the creator of the category below †Bloodpack† 08:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per previous food discussions. If kept, it should obviously be renamed : ) - jc37 12:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if not a joke. Xiner (talk, email) 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless. TonyTheTiger 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above and besides, yuck, sourdough bread. The Rambling Man 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who understand why Scepia is migrating userboxes edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who understand why Scepia is migrating userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - this is ridiculous, a category created for the purpose of praising a user's single deed in wikipedia. †Bloodpack† 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This is ridiculous as said above. VegaDark 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Rambling Man 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not one of those who understands.--Mike Selinker 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 11 edit

Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is starting to be too neutral edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (A userbox may be created, but that's not one of the remedies in this forum.)--Mike Selinker 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is starting to be too neutral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Suggests a fundamental conflict with core policy, leading to a substantial likelyhood of being misused or becoming divisive. Does not appear likely to assist in collaboration. Serpent's Choice 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I also don't see the purpose for having this as a category. - jc37 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too neutral? That doesn't even make sense. Neutrality doesn't have degrees, it is either neutral or it is not. VegaDark 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See my comments by below. But also note incidentally that neutrality does have degrees- thus we will see something as strongly one POV or having a POV leaning slightly towards one direction. (Compare for example the sentences "X the vile, tyrannical dictator of Y" to "X the tyrannical dictator of Y" to "X the dictator of Y). JoshuaZ 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can be closer to or further from neutral, but you can't be more neutral or less neutral. Per WaltCip, You can't be "more equal than others", just like you can't say "You are neutral, but I am more neutral than you". VegaDark 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark. Xiner (talk, email) 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per the Animal Farm argument: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."--WaltCip 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assuming this even made SENSE, which it does not (neutrality is an absolute, you can not have degrees of neutrality), declaring hostility towards a core policy is a baad idea. If it's meant to be a joke, it doesn't work. -Amarkov blahedits 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a valid opinion. First, there is nothing wrong with having a category of Wikipedians who don't like a core policy as long as they abide by it. Second, personally finding a philosophy or attitude non-sensical or incoherent is not an argument for deletion- I find inclusionism to be often borderline nonsense that doesn't mean I'm going to nominate the inclusionist category for deletion. Third, there are a variety of ways that this could be interpreted that would make some sense. For example, they may mean neutral not in the exact same way that NPOV actually calls for. For example, there are frequently problems on science articles about how much weight to give arguments and ideas from cranks or other non-mainstream notions. Frequently well-meaning users push for additional inclusion in the name of neutrality even though NPOV has an undue weight clause to handle such situations. In this sense, the users are attempting to be more neutral than the NPOV policy. Fourth, there are specific viewpoints which some respected editors have advocated that Wikipedia adopt. To use yet another related example- there have been many users who have argued that Wikipedia should have a "Scientific point of view" - while this would be strongly against current policy and will not change in the forseeable future, it is a legitimate opinion that Wikipedians should be allowed to self-identify as holding. JoshuaZ 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inclusion of cranks in scientific topics would not make the article too neutral, but rather overweighted towards the unscientific. I've always found that people who find fault in the NPOV policy actually want to advocate for something -- they don't mean that Wikipedia is too neutral, but rather not inclusive enough of their idea. This is the same for those who want to reject a certain point of view. There's no reason to adopt a scientific POV, moreover, as science tries to be NPOV already. And again, these users have something to push, don't they? Xiner (talk, email) 15:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. We should wait and see what comes of this. — coelacan talk — 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userboxify and Delete I don't think this is a legitimate category, but I feel some people might want to use such a userbox. TonyTheTiger 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that's an idea. They can use What links here to find one another. Xiner (talk, email) 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If people want a userbox, they can make a userbox. But that's beyond this forum's scope.--Mike Selinker 07:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 10 edit

Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists.--Mike Selinker 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get takers on this for the first half day on regular CFD. It may be more appropriate here. TonyTheTiger 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 9 edit

Wikipedians by interest edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by interest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete - First, if this has been discussed before, my apologies but I didn't see anything. Second, I realize that I'm supposed to tag all of the sub-cats as well but given the mess that resulted the last time I did a group nom I'm hoping we can simply take this as done so that we may avoid the comments like "keep this because I can't deal with group noms this big" and the like. So, OK, in looking through this cat and its various sub-cats, it strikes me that these are exactly the sorts of trivial categories that, were they applied to any group of people who weren't Wikipedians, would be deleted. It's unclear to me that there's any rationale for maintaining this sort of extensive categorization scheme to track trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 January 2007
  • While I understand your wont to streamline the process, if the categories aren't tagged, then the categories can't be deleted per process. However, if you wish this to be a discussion regarding such things, I presume that's acceptable (I've done such myself : ) - Just realise that no category action will result of this nom, just suggested CfD action (which would then require tagging, etc.) - jc37 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's perfectly fine. If there's consensus to delete then I'll go through and tag them. I just didn't want to bog the process down in tangents. Otto4711 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this could be a subcat of the pending Category:Wikipedians by category. It actually makes sense for subcatting, although a disclaimer should be posted about not having individual members. Xiner (talk, email) 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree that there are many trivial subcategories in this category, many of the categories provide an additional method of collaboration, which is the overall reason for having user categories. It provides a way to find individual editors who might have knowledge about a specific topic and might be interested in editing articles related to that topic. If there are any specific subcategories that need to be deleted, they should be handled separately. —Cswrye 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration interest and rename all subcategories to Wikipedians interested in collaborating on _____ related articles. We have been beating around the bush for too long by saying that someone being interested in a topic means they are willing to collaborate on the topic. If collaboration is the only justification for these categories existing, then let's just flat out say what these categories are intended for in their name. VegaDark 20:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I for one will vote for your proposal. Write it up.I second the renaming by VegaDark (didn't realize I haven't actually voted). Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are the most likely categories to provide ability to link up over the content they contain.--Mike Selinker 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The sub-categories are routinely kept at UCFD. As an explanation to the nominator, the purpose of these categories is to group editors by their interests as regards articles. If you believe that any given sub-category is useless, then please nominate it individually. --tjstrf talk 05:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I know what the categories are for. I would definitely support a renaming per VegaDark to make it clear that these are relating to being willing to collaborate on articles. That a particular person is "interested" in, say, psychology is trivia. That they are willing to collaborate on psychology articles is not. Otto4711 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (keep)I invoke the magic of WP:IAR and say that, while there may indeed be a difference, will anything be gained by changing the categories? Note that I reject the "categories must always be useful for collaboration" thing, so I'm not going to listen to arguments like "But you said that they're for collaboration!" I use that argument for overspecific categories, but that is a seperate issue.-Amarkov blahedits 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The benefit would be that users would add and remove themselves from the categories accordingly. I bet 90% of the users currently in these categories wouldn't actually be interested in collaborating on their associated articles, so these categories would be less helpful under their current names than if renamed. VegaDark 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Oppose Renaming - While collaboration is a major reason why user categories exist, it isn't the only reason. I think we should be careful of shifting bias in that direction (note that I said "we" : ) - jc37 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then what are the other reasons? I can't think of any legitimate encyclopedic use of categorizing users based on their interests other than collaborative purposes. If people want to say they are interested in things, but are not willing to collaborate on them, then having them in a category would not be helpful to Wikipedia. They can restrict this info to their userpage if that is the case. VegaDark 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And... why do userpages then not have to be completely helpful to the encyclopedia? -Amarkov blahedits 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, there's a school of thought that...Xiner (talk, email) 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow per above arguments.--WaltCip 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Professing an interest in a topic does not necessarily mean that one is interested in collaborating on articles on that topic. I support VegaDark's proposed creation of a Category:Wikipedians by collaboration interest, but I don't think the existing category should be renamed. —Psychonaut 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Edwardian Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete--Mike Selinker 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Edwardian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 08:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form, at least. Bizarrely broad-focused per the category description itself ("For those of us who desire to have lived in the reign of Edward VII or prior to then (even in prehistory) instead of at the present time."). A Category:Wikipedians interested in the Edwardian Period might be acceptable, but not really what this seems to be... Serpent's Choice 08:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least rename per Serpent's Choice. Xiner (talk, email) 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm okay with a rename to Serpent's Choice's suggestion, but I have a feeling that that is not what the creator of the category intended. —Cswrye 14:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is a joke and the rename validates it. TonyTheTiger 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Opposing rename, since it isn't the intention of the category. - jc37 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 7 edit

Wikipedians who play The Game edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play The Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given that the article this category relates to has been deleted, and the deletion confirmed at this DRV, this category no longer seems to serve a collaborative purpose. The fact that there has been a substantial outside effort to influence Wikipedia into including this topic (see the AFD discussion inter alia) also suggests that this may not serve the best purposes of the project. Serpent's Choice 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, now that the page has been deleted. Allow recreation if the article is ever recreated, which I suspect it will be at some point. VegaDark 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the article's recreated, salt the earth.--WaltCip 22:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, by recreated, I mean recreated via consensus at DRV or whatever, not an out of process recreation (which is also likely if the page is not salted). VegaDark 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That I know of, the article has been recreated out of process (and speedily deleted) at a minimum of 3 article-name variations over the last 48 hours... Serpent's Choice 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't believe I somehow missed this AfD, but thank god that article is gone. Now, we can get rid of the user cat, too. -- Kicking222 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Sounds like the game is quite popular for it to have no article. Does non-existence of article invalidate category? Not in my eyes TonyTheTiger 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may seem that way. On the other hand, they could also pool their energy together to write an article. Xiner (talk, email) 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need to categorize people by their liking of a non-notable internet joke. --tjstrf talk 15:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians born in XXXX into Wikipedians born in the XXX0s edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (3K/3D/3M). Looking for someone to help remove the tags.--Mike Selinker 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could list all ~80 of these, but I won't. Anyway, having the specific years seems only to serve to split up the categories; there's no collaborative value I can see from having the specific year as a category. Most transclusions will probably come from some birthday template, which can be tweaked to categorize into the parent categories. -Amarkov blahedits 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to make this clear: I do not endorse deleting the decade categories. -Amarkov blahedits 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Decades are definitely better, but I doubt generations are defined so clearly. Xiner (talk, email) 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they aren't. Merging into generations is probably a bad idea because of that, which is why I stopped at decades. -Amarkov blahedits 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm voting Delete all atm, as renaming nominations somtimes devolve into. I don't see many benefits of grouping users by birth decade. It's more likely they'll find a generational interest, eg Woodstock, which would have a Category of its own. Xiner (talk, email) 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably best to just delete all of these. We don't encourage giving this kind of personal info anyway, especially for children. --Cyde Weys 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that may be true, it's really not relevant. This nomination is about merging into larger categories, not deleting birthyear categories entirely. You know very well what my opinion is on that. -Amarkov blahedits 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll stay neutral on this one. But I need to offer a procedural note: If the result of this discussion is "Delete", the categories at that point won't be deleted, but will instead be: Closed with a consensus to nominate all sub-categories, which could then be nominated here for deletion, since they weren't/aren't tagged. Part of the reason we tag categories when nominating them for discussion, is as a message to any who might be interested in the discussion. If you would like this discussion to "count" in the way I presume you've intended, then someone let me know when all the categories are tagged, and I'll be happy to relist to whatever day that is. Otherwise, I have "no problem" with the discussion continuing as is, with my previous comments in mind. (Though perhaps in that case, it should be moved to the talk page.) - jc37 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll get on it. I hope people won't mind if I go a bit above 3 edits per minute with AWB here. -Amarkov blahedits 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say delete all here. Can anyone give me a reason on why these categories will help Wikipedia? The only use I can really see out of them is if a Wikipedian is listed as being born in the 20's or something and they suddenly stop editing, we will have an idea of why. VegaDark 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom I think that decadal categories have some (small) notional value since age roughly correlates with experience, interests, and knowledge. The individual year categories though are simply overcategorization without any added value that I can see. Eluchil404 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, individual year categories are definitely overcategorization. --tjstrf talk 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I must be a liberal User Categorian. In my first visit today, I am having trouble voting to get rid of things generally agreed to be worthy of deleting. This is another case where I am not sure why people are against it. We have general categories for birth and death years. What is wrong with a user birth year category? TonyTheTiger 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into decade categories. However, to prevent people born after January 28, 1994 being listed in there, should we have 'People born from 1990 to 1993' and wait for January 1, 2008 to include 1994'ers, or what? 1ne 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... why? It doesn't matter if children happen to be included in categories; it only matters if the categories identify them as children. I'm sure Category:Wikipedians who like Naruto will have loads of children in it, but it doesn't really matter, because they are not identified as children. -Amarkov blahedits 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Wikipedians born in 1994' doesn't identify someone as a child? (I'm aware it doesn't exist.) 1ne 06:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does, but I propose deleting the specific year categories... -Amarkov blahedits 02:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of them as trivial. At least the "by interest" cats let you find help in editing articles related to that interest. >Radiant< 09:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yawn...are people still talking about this? Anthony Rupert 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... I may be wrong, but I don't believe this has ever come up before. I think you're either misreading my nomination or interpreting the "delete all" votes as what I meant. -Amarkov blahedits 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of discussion took place before a month or so ago, when people argued whether or not categories of this sort were safe for children. (Incidentally, the result was keep.)
But I just noticed that you're voting to rename rather than delete, so I apologize. Anthony Rupert 05:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well yes, I was aware of that discussion (seeing as I started it...) My opinion here is not relevant to my opinion on whether or not "safe for children" is a good reason. -Amarkov blahedits 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into decade categories as being simpler and more usefull. As someone who is in one of these all on my own, I would like some company -:). Unfortunately all of the other category years from the 1930 are empty so I'm the oldest Wikipedian in these categories. On the issue of children I think we should be safe and not have a category for the 1990s. There are 52 entries in 1990 (aged 16 or 17), 27 in 1991 (most less than 16), 18 in 1992, and 8 in 1993. I do not believe we should encourage young Wikipedians to advertise their age. --Bduke 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but you should allow a 1990's category. Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and the template dosen't tell you what age they are, so they could be 17, and we allow the Teen userbox/category. I think that deleting it would be discriminatory because it doesn't even identify the year of birth. Youth Wikipedians should be allowed to find each other just as Wikipedians of other age groups, and there's only a risk if the user places personally identifible information, which is discouraged anyway. The idea of disallowing such a broad category smacks of implicit adultism to me. J0lt C0la 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination is not about deleting any of the decade categories. Stop bringing it up please. -Amarkov blahedits 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just saying what I said about the 1990's category in reply to the user above me, sorry but I just wanted to comment on it before it became a popular idea nearing consensus. J0lt C0la 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I'm not sure it's against the rules to vote Delete on renaming noms. Xiner (talk, email) 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, but I still don't like it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Liking "voting" delete or keep or merge is irrelevant. 1ne 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware it's irrelevant. That still doesn't mean I have to like it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The merge argument makes no sense to me. We can easily quarrel about whether the information should exist at all, but if it exists, it might as well be specific. I think the information is fine, so I vote keep.--Mike Selinker 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 5 edit

Wikipedians who like Naruto subcats edit

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

The result of the debate was UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Naruto - jc37 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating all 27 subcategories of Category:Wikipedians who like Naruto for merger into their parent category. These subdivisions are all improperly titled, duplicates of their parent category, and do nothing to help collaboration since they simply describe the User's fictional affinity or allegiance within the Naruto universe. The subcategories are:

Merge all as nominator. --tjstrf talk 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uperge all per nom and Rename to "Wikipedians who are interested in Naruto". Xiner (talk, email) 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no personal opinion on that second change, but most of Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga uses who like. --tjstrf talk 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge all per nom. Oppose rename, per current convention. - jc37 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom...If renamed, all others in that category should be renamed. Maybe someone should make that in a group nom later. VegaDark 08:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom. I'm currently neutral on a renaming. -- Kicking222 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User pages requesting assistance edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#Category:User pages requesting assistance Timrollpickering 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Category:User pages requesting assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last CfD here (result was 'rename'.) This cat has a dubious premise, is unpopulated at the time of writing, and has only two entries in the what-links-here (three now I've added this nom), one of which is a previous CfD, so I'd guess it's unpatrolled. I've placed this nom here rather than UCfD because it seems to be a category of userpages, rather than a category of users (I don't mind this nom being moved if I'm wrong). --ais523 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The helpme tag is sufficient. Xiner (talk, email) 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This category allows someone to help someone else "at a glance". Its "usefulness" would seem to be undeniable? - jc37 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jc37; a redundant approach seems best, so let's keep the category as well as the IRC notification. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To ask for help this way is to ask people to keep an eye on the members of this category, which is tedious. If you slap {{helpme}} on your talk page, as welcome messages say, it'll alert people in IRC to your plight. Which is faster, better known, and more often used? Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it another way, which method depends on non-WP resources, which may not be available? The only way the catergory doesn't work is if WP is down, that's not true for the Freenode-hosted IRC stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, Category:Wikipedians looking for help (a more standard name btw) is what the helpme tag adds. Thus this is a duplicate and can be safely deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundent to {{helpme}}/bootcamp/helpmebot/Tangobot2/ect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Royalguard. Would only serve to confuse people. Bjelleklang - talk 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems to be a confusion about what this category is for? (Which is likely as a result of its current name...) As far as I can tell, it's a request for help for one's userpage. (To make it better/prettier/whatever.) It's not a general request for help. (Though it should probably be a subcat of Category:Wikipedians looking for help.) Hopefully this clarifies : ) - jc37 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, but that's just overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should also be noted that no one has come here to claim they watch the category to help users. Xiner (talk, email) 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, whether a category is currently being used as a resource has nothing to do with whether a category is kept or not. - jc37 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that it is not being used because it is not a standard way of asking for help. Royalguard listed a number of those resources above. Xiner (talk, email) 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually we established in several previous UCfDs (such as New Wikipedians) that it is a standard way. Also, if it isn't, then, Category:Wikipedians looking for help should be deleted as well : ) - jc37 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't look like the same to me. The latter is connected to more tools. Xiner (talk, email) 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the nom, so putting 'delete' here would be misleading From what I gather from the last CfD, this was a request for help with a userpage (as in, 'I want a better userpage, can anyone help me?') and so is different from {{helpme}}, so I agree with Jc37. The confusion is just another reason why this should be deleted. --ais523 10:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, confusion from a name, would just be a reason to rename, I would think? This wouldn't be the first tume it's been renamed : ) - jc37 12:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also wouldn't be the first time a category is deleted for overcategorization. Help with userpages isn't much different from help for other Wikipedia usage. Xiner (talk, email) 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is possible that the reason for the low population is that it may be one of the first place helpful wikipedians look to offer their services. Have you ever noticed how short the queue is at WP:RPP compared to some other queues. It is also probably the place where help is most readily supplied because of urgency. I think this user category is similar. TonyTheTiger 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the what-links-here, I'd guess it has a low population because nobody knows about it. As far as I know, it doesn't send alerts to IRC like {{helpme}} (CAT:HELP) does, and it isn't linked on welcome messages. --ais523 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Being connected to other tools is a big advantage. Category:Wikipedians_looking_for_help helps out 20-30 users daily, many -- dare I say a comfortable majority -- of them novice users. That is what I meant when I said this is not a standard help tool. Xiner (talk, email) 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User en edit

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

The result of the debate was Keep - Again re-affirming consensus on the babel-specific categories. - jc37 12:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4#Category:User en Timrollpickering 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Category:User en to Category:English-speaking Wikipedians
  • Rename, The category name "User en" is not intuitive, and breaks at least two guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): that categories for Wikipedia users should include "Wikipedians" in the name, and category names should not include non-intuitive abbreviations. I propose renaming the category to "English-speaking Wikipedians" and adjusting Template:User en accordingly. Tim Pierce 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. This is the ISO 639 abbreviation used for all languages on Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can of worms, as we have literally hundreds of such categories. Please read Wikipedia:Babel, and then decide if you want to nominate the lot of them or if it'd be better to let it slide. >Radiant< 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that there are hundreds of language categories and that renaming them all would be a considerable amount of work. I am willing to start that project too, and if necessary I will even attempt to do a group nomination for them all. Just tagging them all would probably take longer than the five days normally given to a renaming proposal though. :-) Tim Pierce 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is not an article-space category, and guidelines are largely irrelevant. Waste of time is not justified by possible benefits of renaming. `'mikka 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by your first comment. The naming guidelines include recommendations that apply only to user categories (to wit, that any category relating to Wikipedia users should include the word "Wikipedians"). So I can't possibly agree that the naming guidelines are prima facie irrelevant to non-article categories. Tim Pierce 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can of worms per the previous comments. The Babel categorization system is there for a reason. If you disagree, pursue your case with a higher calling.--WaltCip 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read Wikipedia:Babel thoroughly and have no problems with it. But the article says nothing about how the categories are named. I'm suggesting that we leave the templates as they are: {{User en}}, {{User fr}}, and so on, and just rename the categories to which they add people. Tim Pierce 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - lots of suggestions about wasting time. I'm not asking anyone to waste their time except me. :-) I will do as much as I can to rename the categories and redirect links, and will be grateful for anyone's help, but no one who considers this a waste of time needs to put any time into it. :-) Tim Pierce 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, languages have many names, usually. And would you like to recategorize everything, change all the scripts, etc, etc... -Amarkov blahedits 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had read my comments, you would see that is what I am volunteering to do. :-) Tim Pierce 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency with the Babel system, which is intended to operate the same on all foundation wikis. --tjstrf talk 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On Wikipedia talk:Babel, several times in the last year, other people have made the same proposal: Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive1#Category: User languages -> Wikipedians by languages ?? and Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive1#Category names (in addition to my own, Wikipedia talk:Babel/Archive1#Better Category links? Each time the question has been raised, no one has said it should not be done. What's wrong with this idea? Tim Pierce 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one thing, consistency, as brought up above. Language categories should be fairly invariant across languages, instead of having to use the name of the language you speak in whatever language wiki you happen to be on. -Amarkov blahedits 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what interwiki links are for. --MarSch 12:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone unless you want to change all of the category names in every language Wikipedia, and provide multilingual cross-way translation from and to every other language for each category. Please try not to make working cross-languages any harder than it already is! Cleduc 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is what interwiki links are for. --MarSch 12:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree that this is the same thing. Unless this is consistently applied across all of the wikipedias, it will cause confusion and increase difficulty. And, no, that is not what interwiki links are "for". I repeat, please do not make life more difficult for those of us who work cross-language. Cleduc 09:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per several previous discussions (including the one above : ) - jc37 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The language abbrev can be kept in there Category:English(en)-speaking Wikipedians if people think it would make things more clear. --MarSch 12:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per aforementioned discussions. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it the same, it matches the url. It's a tradition. It works just fine. --futurebird 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am open to a renaming, but the babel system is so deeply entrenched into Wikipedia's history and culture that I don't think that UCFD is the right place to discuss getting rid of it. If there were consensus at Wikipedia:Babel to change this system, I might be willing to reconsider. —Cswrye 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's added by a user box, which explains what it means. Does anyone have the category and not he user box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osidge (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 January 2007
  • Keep unless you can suggest a renaming procedure for all the Babel categories—Remember we do have cats in the form of User ?? X, where X is a number between 1 and 4. --JB Adder | Talk 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:COW, which is not a policy but should be. In other words, doing anythin would open up a huge can of worms. --Wizardman 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not convinced a change wouldn't be too messy. Xiner (talk, email) 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Advantages do not offset the huge disadvantage of making the English Wikipedia system incompatible with every other Foundation wiki. - Tangotango (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 4 edit

Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball Z edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Dragon Ball series. While there were many comments to use "interested in", both Category:Wikipedians interested in television and Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga use "who like" as a standard for their subcategories. Attempting to avoid an (understandable) immediate re-nomination based on "per consistancy". - jc37 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball Z → :Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball - Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT, Dragon Ball AF are all continuations of Dragon Ball. I really find it necessary for the page to be deleted/renamed (whatever, I don't know how this works) and moved to :Category:Wikipedians who like Dragon Ball. That's how it should be since Dragon Ball is original (Besides, the article names are named with (Dragon Ball) in them, and not Dragon Ball Z or Dragon Ball GT). PL(DB) 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Dragon Ball series? Xiner (talk, email) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is that how it should be? I just want it to be standard in general. Whatever is best to decide it... PL(DB) 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many categories are being renamed to "interested in". I think this one should, too, as the whole point of user categories should be to aid in editing, not expressing a preference. Xiner (talk, email) 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Adventure Thru Inner Space edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty category. VegaDark 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Adventure Thru Inner Space - One member, the category (and userbox) creator. I removed the category from the userbox, which removed the userbox, and presumably the creator (hasn't updated yet). I was going to substitute a "interested in Disney theme parks" category, but it seems that we don't have one. - jc37 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Users can just contribute to that page. Xiner (talk, email) 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real value for collaboration. —Cswrye 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as empty category. Tagged as such. VegaDark 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians edit

Category:Wikipedians - Based on the November 23rd discussion. There was concensus to remove all members, but a concern about editing Wikipedian userpages, because it might be considered "bad etiquette". So I've broken the discussion into two parts. 1.) Remove the category from all templates (inlcuding userboxes) 2.) Remove the category from all user pages. (Note that this discussion is only about the members of the category, not the category itself, or any of its subcategories.) - jc37 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians, part 1 edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Remove from all templates - jc37 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove from all templates - as nominator. - jc37 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all templates --tjstrf talk 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all templates - By the way, I think it was a good idea to break this up into sections! —Cswrye 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all templates VegaDark 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all templates Xiner (talk, email) 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all templates per nom.--Osidge 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reomve from all templates I can't see why it should be in any templates to begin with. --JB Adder | Talk 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians, part 2 edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Remove from all user pages (Though I was also hoping for more discussion, Cswrye. This only barely avoided "No consensus".) - jc37 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove from all user pages - as nominator. - jc37 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all user pages --tjstrf talk 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - I really don't like the idea of taking people out of existing categories, but it is true that there really shouldn't be anyone in this category. I'd like to see where this discussion goes. —Cswrye 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all user pages - VegaDark 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all user pages Xiner (talk, email) 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all user pages per nom.--Osidge 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from all user pages This category was only supposed to hold categories anyhow, wasn't it? --JB Adder | Talk 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians, part 3 edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus - jc37 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "something" per consensus (or oppose renaming of the category). (Added section due to tjstrf's comments - I honestly hadn't thought about renaming as another option, though we've had a recent Dec 2 CfD about it.) - jc37 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename, though if I had to choose, I prefer Category:Wikipedian categories. - jc37 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change name to Category:Wikipedians by category or similar to reduce confusion. --tjstrf talk 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename for several reasons. First, this is a major top-level category that is fairly well-known and has lots of links to it. Redirects don't really work for categories, so this would essentially involved breaking a lot of links, and it would be harder for people to find (I don't think that putting "categories" in the name of a category is intuitive since it's not normally done). Second, it seems redundant to put "category" in the name of a category, and it's not something that is generally done on Wikipedia. For example, there are quite a few article namespace catetegories that should not have any articles in them (articles should be subcategorized), but we don't put call them "Foo categories". For a non-article namespace example, look at Category:Wikipedia administration, which should probably only have subcategories, but there are some project pages in it. Renaming it to Category:Wikipedia administration categories would be awkward. Third, note that if parts 1 and 2 of this proposal pass, renaming will probably be unnecessary (any stragglers that return to this category and probably be handled easily). However, if consensus is to rename, I would prefer Category:Wikipedian categories per jc37. —Cswrye 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhh... I'm leaning towards rename to Category:Wikipedians by category. If this is not renamed then Wikipedians will not get the hint that they shouldn't be in this category. If no consensus to rename, there should be a big notice at the top saying you shouldn't add yourself to this category. VegaDark 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians by category. More accurate. Xiner (talk, email) 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 2 edit

Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous CfD

Although he's the grand poo-bah I think in most cases one's opinion of Jimbo isn't particularly important. In cases where it does matter having a category for it is not necessarily important. Lastly other "Jimbo opinion" related categories were deleted.--T. Anthony 07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was considering nominating this myself. There isn't any real use that I can see from this category. If kept, leaves open up the door for Category:Wikipedians who trust any other person. VegaDark 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does this mean that we're going to remove all categories of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy that are not on this list? Part (but not all) of why I ask is that we had consensus to delete Category:Wikipedians who do not trust Jimbo as a "not" category. There are two supplementary reasons that "not" categories are deleted. The first is that often they can be seen as divisive, and the second is because if you add the positive form and the negative form (the "not category") you get a category that is potentially all Wikipedians. One of them should go, and so due to the first reason, "not" categories usually have general consensus to be deleted. So if we also delete the positive form, then we've taken away one of the reasons that the "not" category was deleted. I think we should keep this in mind, since this alone could be enough for someone to at least nominate for WP:DRV. - jc37 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There are other reasons for wanting to delete these category besides one of them being a "not" category, so even if this category is deleted, it doesn't take away the reasoning behind deleting "not" categories. —Cswrye 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a significant philosophy vested in this category, even more so than "deletionism" vs. "inclusionism". --tjstrf talk 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How does knowing who trusts Jimbo benefit the encyclopedia in any way? VegaDark 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I understand the philosophy behind this category, but I still don't like the idea of creating categories that point out specific editors (even someone as important as Jimbo). —Cswrye 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this improves Wikipedia. At least rename it to Wikipedians who want a benevolent dictator. Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is irrelevant to the writing of the encyclopedia and it sends some very weird, and potentially bad, messages. We don't need a category for this; hopefully you do trust Jimbo, and if you don't, maybe you have your reasons, but either way, I don't see why the categories have to get involved in this issue. It's not something you'd scream from the rooftops. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whether or not you trust Wales is a personal opinion; and personal opinions are for the User Space, not Wikipedia space. Also, would it not be simpler just to add {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User trusts Jimbo}} if you do trust Wales? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony cfc (talk • contribs).
  • Comment - While I know that he casts himself as "just another Wikipedian", he's also known by many as "our benevolent ruler", and other such names. His name has become intertwined with Wikipedia itself. And I think that this usage of his name may be a philosophical statement of some kind. (Though of what, I'm not certain. Clarification would be great.) - jc37 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [changed from Keep, per Mike Selinker, below] - jc37 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of nonsense are you blabbering? ; ) This would be better than a userbox than a category.--WaltCip 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whew, I didn't notice the smiley at first and was initially rather shocked at the response. Anyway, I presume that you mean "...better as as userbox..."? As for the sentiment, as I mentioned in the comment near the top of this discussion, we currently allow wikipedian philosophy categories. This would seem to be just one more... - jc37 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Jimbo truly is omniscient the vast majority of the 1.5 million articles actually don't involve him. Organizational and administrative issues do, but I got the strong impression Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy involves your editing philosophy. A philosophy about images, deletion, etc may impact editing in general. Something like trusting/distrusting the boss/poobah I think would fit something more specific like interest or collaboration or something.--T. Anthony 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has more to do with the historical debates that once were on Wikipedia (involving such persons as User:Jimbo Wales, User:Larry Sanger, and User:The Cunctator), and similar discussions that go on even today. - jc37 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So alternatively should we have Category:Wikipedians who support Larry Sanger or something?--T. Anthony 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, yes. I've done some reading/research... It would seem that this is a Wikipedian philosophy about Wikipedia itself. And whose vision the users in question support. - jc37 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a potentially divisive meta-category. People can express their pro-Jimbo sentiments on their userpages through userboxes or text but a category serves no useful purpose. Eluchil404 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody trustworthy would want a cult of personality, so tautologically Jimbo wouldn't want this unless he were untrustworthy. Under the presumption that he is trustworthy, it should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I think this is about more than the individual, per se, I suppose it is about his perspective on Wikipedia... So: Bleah! @ you for making sense : ) - jc37 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, we all trust Jimbo or we wouldn't trust the whole system!--Osidge 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I hesitate to mention that the truth is I do not trust Jimbo. I do not know enough about him to make a decision on whether I trust him or not. That's why for a time I put myself in the defunct "Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo." Since then my attitude has evolved and I'd say on balance I lean more toward distrust than trust. Although I've not made a final verdict and I don't think I ever need to. Anyway this might screw up this nomination, but my main concern wasn't that. (Well mostly not, I have slight concerns that people here nearly fall into an unhealthy personality cult) I just think we should avoid personality issues like this in general.--T. Anthony 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Mike Selinker, above. - jc37 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Selinker's argument is interesting. I think the category is meant either as a joke or to confirm that we trust he is not a cult personality, if not a trustable cult personality. My thinking is that in either case the category is not useful due to ambiguity. I don't know what they are trusting him for. Are they trusting him as the leader of the cult or not to be a leader of a cult. TonyTheTiger 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trust Jimbo because he's proven he can be trusted, and is generally a great guy. It's also somewhat tongue in cheek, for those who haven't lost their sense of humour. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 1 edit

Category:Wikipedians who use 1600x1200 screen resolution edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use 1600x1200 screen resolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't see a purpose for this category. Knowing people's screen resolutions will not aid in the collaboration of any articles. A userbox is more than enough. VegaDark 11:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedians' tech specs are important information, but I have to concede that I can't think of a reason for this category. - jc37 12:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see one use for this, that use being to judge the relative prevalence of different monitor resolutions among editors. While seemingly useless data in and of itself, this information can be of great help to layout developers, who must consider screen resolution among other variable when making templates, setting image sizes, etc. If it turns out that 80% of editors use 1024x768, then the argument over whether a 300px image is overwhelming on a page just became much easier, as it can be made with some sort of empirical basis. In other words, a category not for direct collaboration, but for data gathering which nonetheless aids in collaboration. --tjstrf talk 12:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Reply to tjstrf - A userbox would be necessary in this case, not necessarily a category.--WaltCip 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There'll always a significant percentage that use 800x600, so I'm not sure how much this will help. In any case, a self-selected group of userbox users is hardly representative of the general community. Xiner (talk, email) 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really doubt that this category could have much use. I understand tjstrf's point, but I doubt that user categories would ever be used for that purpose. Even if they were, any statistics derived from them would be meaningless because they would not represent all Wikipedians since user categories are self-selected. —Cswrye 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/January_2007&oldid=1223923847"