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

< May 2008	July 2008 >

June 27 edit

Category:Flagged editors edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flagged editors

This is a category is a result of someone placing a category in a template which is intended to be subst on users' talk pages informing them that a certain article may be flagged for deletion.

A category whose inclusion criteria is that they've been contacted about a potential deletion? And not even the same article, but any deletion? Obviously not a good idea.

In looking over Template:Flag-article and its related category Category:Flagged articles, I think that this was merely a case of copy paste of the article version, with a simple changing of the word "article" to "editor". Doing so for the template is understandable, but not for the category. (And I'm actually not certain even about Category:Flagged articles.)

I've already been WP:BOLD and removed Category:Flagged editors from the template, but since the prior effect of the template was that it's been subst to user talk pages, it will require manual work/a bot to clear the category. - jc37 03:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 03:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Doesn't anyone try asking an editor why something was done first, or informing them as a courtesy about a CFD?? Yes, I'll admit that it has been a PITA going back and and removing the Category tags from editors' Talk pages after their articles have been deleted (see my edit history), but I was planning on having a bot do that Real Soon Now ... BTW, articles evaporate from Category:Flagged articles when they are deleted, so it is impossible to tell how often Template:Flag-article has been used, or by whom ... you really should read Flag templates for deletion warnings to understand the Big Picture ... if you examine {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} (and their documentation) you'll see that one is not just a "copy and paste" of the other ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{05:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to group such users in a category. VegaDark (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There is much too much article creation with out proper referencing (WP:Attribution) one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Keeping track on these violations and chasing them up is a powerful mechanism to improving the quality of WP. Flagging editors allows easy follow-up by multiple editors, especially when chasing some editors who violate consistently. The mechanism allows new editors to be guided to improving their article rather than simply CSD or PROD which obviously looses WP a few potentially good articles. On the other hand it stops Wikipedia from just becoming a mirror of sites such as IMDB. Of course,regular cleanup is essential. --Triwbe (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see how the category will help identify the authors of bad articles, because it is removed when the article has been taken care of--whether by improvement or deletion. So I do not see how it has any real usefulness at all. It will certainly not help even identifying the editors that are currently submitting multiple bad articles, until everyone uses the flagging method for indicating problematic articles. And even if widely used, it would then raise other questions--especially because essentially everyone who writes articles has occasional articles that someone tags for lacking something--even if they are always perfect, people warn incorrectly. And this category doesn't discriminated between those who have entered one article that someone thinks, for example, might be lacking references, and really difficult offenders. If it stayed permanently, and if everyone used it, it might be of some use, but then it would raise the other questions all the more prominently. I do not think this part of the scheme was a good idea--at least in its present form. This is not meant as criticism of the other parts of the flagging scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 June 2008

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.

June 26 edit

Category:Wikipedians who support the AK Party edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per extensive precedent against "support / oppose" user categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User categories for political party support are generally deleted regardless of what party is involved. See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by political ideology. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who support the headscarf in Turkey edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic category per WP:SOAP, not useful for collaboration as only encompassing users with the same point of view on the issue. Additionally, although it is currently only being used by one user, it is a category included as part of a userbox. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFD. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive precedent against "support / oppose" user categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rasadam (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - especially if headscarves are at all indicative of oppression, discrimination, or segregation; if it's supportive of a national "costume" and the heritage of the country and not negative, I'd be more in favor of it, but it's still not likely to be useful for collaboration as Snigbrook mentioned. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Hindi 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 - Uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:User Hindi to Category:User hi

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded duplication of Category:User hi, which it is a sub-category of --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFD. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 25 edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in TV game shows edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in TV game shows to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV game show - to match the current convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series. - jc37 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as nominator. - jc37 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Rasadam (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User wiiwant edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated userbox says "This user doesn't have a Wii, but hopes to get one soon." Improper naming convention, unencyclopedic, not useful to categorize, extensive precedent to delete this type of category. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure how this could help anyone.. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rasadam (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Wii edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated userbox says "This user owns a Wii." Improper naming convention, unencyclopedic, not useful to categorize, extensive precedent to delete this type of category. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of "interested in" category, but I believe there are existing methods for collaboration (other user cats, and WP:VG) that would probably do a better job. -- Ned Scott 09:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, weird title and pretty useless.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Johnny Cash 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: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another "Wikipedians by band/artist" category, which have all been deleted. Quite possibly qualifies for G4 speedy deletion as substantially similar to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Johnny Cash, but I figured the wording was different enough to at least list for a second opinion. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 09:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rasadam (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Dreamweaverjack edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete individual userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons mentioned on the talkpage of the category - Category talk:User Dreamweaverjack - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dreamweaverjack, have a list on your user page. We do not have this sort of category. --Bduke (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as oer established consensus - fchd (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Practitioners of Jeet Kune Do 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 practice Jeet Kune Do. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedian Jeet Kune Do practitioners to indicate it is a user category (or, alternatively, Category:Wikipedians who practice Jeet Kune Do). VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think Category:Wikipedians who practice Jeet Kune Do is the better option. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the naming standards, but Category:Wikipedians who practice Jeet Kune Do sounds better to me, too. --Willscrlt (Talk) 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rename to Category:Wikipedian practitioners of Jeet Kune Do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), to better match the wording of the original editor. --SSBohio 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aremith-Owned Pages edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete individual userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, if there were a software-based way of tracking pages in a pseudo-category (as discussed in the nom of my category below), then everything in Aremith's category could go into it and be no problem. That issue aside, I have a problem with the "-owned" moniker, since nobody "owns" pages on Wikimedia sites except, in a manner of speaking, the Foundation. So, if the category is somehow not deleted, it really should be renamed and indicate that it's a user-category ("User:Aremith"). --Willscrlt (Talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 18 edit

Category:Wikipedians who like First Person Shooter 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: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per extensive precedent to delete this type of category, not helpful to categorize "who likes" FPS's. VegaDark (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep when I created the category, I did so because there was no clarification of an FPS genre. It is a completely separate genre, therefore, it needs to be noted as a category to differentiate from strategy, action adventure, rpg, etc. so that it's specific fans may easily categorize it. Zarbon (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom. Frieza and Vegeta Forever (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do realize that this discussion has nothing to do with the userbox, only the category associated with it, don't you? The userbox would be discussed at WP:MFD, not here at WP:UCFD. Horologium (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and as per extensive precedent. Horologium (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DA PIE EATER (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 13 edit

Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need a category for two accounts. Seriously. I know one of the accounts User:Oversight is important, while I've never heard of User:Cambridge CERT, but is it really necessary to put those two accounts into a category? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 23:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this needs to go in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion as the category in question is a user category – Ikara ^{talk →} 23:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So moved. --Bduke (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am inclined to the view that the admins who created these special role accounts and the category knew what they were doing, so we should should leave it alone. Certainly the category causes no problems. --Bduke (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the category description notes, the category is there to show which accounts serve as service provider contact points for IP or other abuse. It may have only two accounts there now, but it does serve a demonstrable purpose, and most certainly has the ability to grow (if we could only just get network admins to work with us). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important for quick intendification. Frieza and Vegeta Forever (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Internal housekeeping category to identify what appears to be a user account as something else entirely. The number of accounts in this category is neither here nor there, as it's the usefulness of the taxonomy that determines the import of the category. --SSBohio 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. More useful than lots of categories we have here. 5:15 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This would seem to roughly meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#Appropriate types of user categories: "Categories that group users by participation in Wikipedia". However, unless part of a larger categorisation scheme, typically categories of less than 4 members are typically deleted. That said, due to the importance of what's being categorised (somewhat comparable - not greatly dissimilar to - categorising sock accounts), and the distinct potential for growth, I think we can waive that general guideline in this case. - jc37 06:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but I wouldn't mind revisiting this sometime in the future. I share the nominator's concerns about the category, but agree with the above its benefits outweight any costs. A rename might be in order in the future for something more clear though. VegaDark (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 12 edit

Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot 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. List available here. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete User:SoxBot V and User:Chris G Bot 3 have both been shut down by system admins. There is no point having the category if it is not being used for anything. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CfD. --Bduke (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ for now. These events are pretty recent, and I'd rather there be a little bit more time for discussion about what happened before we start deleting anything. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Listify then delete. It seems it's doubtful the bot will be in operation again (at least in its current form). The information on who was using the service might provide some useful information to those looking for alternatives, and wishing to understand the limits and problems of the old system. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, no objections to listifying of course per Ned Scott. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, with no objections to listifying per Ned Scott. (Go for it Ned : ) - As an aside, I'm wondering at the usefulness in general of: "Category:Wikipedians who use a certain bot". - jc37 06:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 10 edit

Category:Fans of A Fine Frenzy edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per previous actions on "Wikipedians by band" categories CultureDrone (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy delete per nom, extensive precedent to delete "Wikipedians by band" categories. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 9 edit

Category:Charismatic 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:Charismatic Christian Wikipedians. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user category refers to Christians identifying with the Charismatic movement, so the current title is rather misleading and should be changed to e..g Category:Charismatic Christian Wikipedians.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Given the nom's rationale, I can see where people could be misled. Blueboy 96 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The recommended category is desired because it is a much more accurate indicator of a Wikipedian's beliefs. Tcisco (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I completely got the wrong idea when I saw this category, particularly as I'd never heard of the movement. Cheers, CP 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Personally, I'm in favor of deleting all of these "Wikipedians by religion" categories, as they have nothing to do with making an encyclopedia, but as long as they remain, this one should be renamed for clarification. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in media as propaganda edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category is attached to a userbox with the text "This user knows that the mainstream media is just a brainwashing tool". I would hardly associate that with being "interested in media as propaganda". Furthermore, even if the title was accurate, what exactly would this category facilitate collaboration on? No article on Media as propaganda, a better name for this category, if kept, would be Category:Wikipedians interested in propaganda, which has a broader scope for collaboration. Considering the userbox this is currently linked to, however, independent creation of that category seems like a better choice than a rename of this one. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As is touched upon in the Propaganda article (see the 'Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model'), theories have been developed (and are still developing) which look at whole media systems themselves as being 'propaganda' (not just some content carried by media) - hence the category at issue being called specifically 'users interested in media as propaganda' rather than 'propaganda'. This is a growing field and I have paid for and await delivery for latest research materials, relating to this issue, with a view to either expanding the Propaganda page, or creating another article to cover the specific concept of 'media as propaganda'. This I would hope to do in collaboration with other interested users after thoroughly examining the latest research and how it relates to the current Wikipedia material. In relation to the 'populating' userbox, I would firstly refer to the guideline text at the top of this 'User categories for discussion' page which states 'When discussing categories which are populated partially or wholly by the transclusion of userboxes or other templates, the category, not the templates, is to be the subject of the discussion.' Secondly I would highlight the fact that category page clearly offers the code to join the category WITHOUT using a userbox, then it offers a link to a userbox should the potential category member feel inclined to use it. Drywontonmee (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notice at the top is to alert editors that the userbox is not being considered for deletion, the user categories the boxes are paired with are frequently brought up here to bring attention to possible miscategorization (which looks extremely likely in this case). Further, the prospect of a new article is not enough to keep this category. Time and time again we have deleted categories both on UCFD and CFD that have no corrisponding article related to them, on UCFD due to lack of collaborative potential. IMO you should create the article first, then we can talk about keeping the category, and even then it may to too narrow of a scope for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find it extremely discouraging that a potential contributor should be put under so much pressure to immediately come up with the goods, such as a new page, under threat of having their collaborative networks deleted. At this time, the category is only three and a half weeks old and it already has twenty people interested in it, so it seems to me there is plenty of collaborative potential here. If they are linked by the userbox, it is reasonable to infer that they are probably interested in the category, even though to your mind they are mismatched (I think it is well matched, just put in different words). Again, the category should not be judged by an associated userbox anyway - according to the guide notice that explicitly says: 'the category, not the templates, is to be the subject of the discussion.' I've only just received the first of the relevant research materials that I have purchased, to help in expanding the subject on wikipedia either in the Propaganda page or on a new page (at this point it is unclear as to which is more appropriate), hopefully in collaboration with others. I'd envisaged the development of this taking some months, considering the breadth and complexity of the subject and my limited spare time. From a volunteer perspective, having a life and all that, to have this pressure and worry feels very uncomfortable. I've had nine days of wondering whether it's worth trying to contribute in this kind of environment where unnecessary pressure can be put on volunteers wanting to contribute in good faith and in a measured way. It feels like bullying to me. If this is not resolved quickly (in the next few days - I've worried about this enough), and the pressuring ceased, I'll be happily deleting my account and not wasting my time even trying to contribute. This user is not interested in swimming against the tide or jumping to someone else's arbitrary schedule. My vote is to keep the category and let things develop over some months at the leisure of those willing to contribute their time and resources, without being pressured. I'm rapidly losing interest. Drywontonmee (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories: Categories that group users by advocacy of a position. The associated userbox(User:Drywontonmee/Userboxes/MainMediaBS) makes this rather clear: "This user knows that the mainstream media is just a brainwashing tool". Note also the usage of the word "knows", which is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes as a word to avoid for just these reasons. - jc37 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I really have had enough of this now. I'm tying up some loose ends over the next few days then deleting my account. To put it mildly, I strongly suspect that all these objections to the actual user category are politically motivated because they all centre around an optional userbox and are not addressing the category itself and the prospective collaboration it was meant to facilitate. This avoidance of reason indicates to me political motivations. This all despite the guide notice at the top of the page against discussing userboxes. What if there was another balancing userbox also populating the category which stated the opposite? The category could not then be logically objected to on the grounds you give, which highlights the fact that your objections have nothing to do with the actual category you seek to delete (despite growing interest). It's really not worth wasting time in such a hostile and unreasoning environment. Ta ta. Drywontonmee (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, before you get your hat and coat, you may wish to check out GoodBye. In any case, it is, of course, up to you whether you wish to choose to attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia or not. You may, of course, feel free to request to have the account blocked. (They don't delete accounts here, merely userpages.)

Second, the point of the notice at the top is to indicate that this page's intended purpose is discussion of the categories. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use any and all tools available in discussing. And one rather common one is to attempt to determine intent. And we've rather often looked to a populating userbox for intent.

And by-the-by, Would it be stating the obvious to note, in looking at timestamps, that you created both the category and the userbox? And that the userbox was created before the category? And that, the category was added to the userbox the following day, and several minutes after that, you created the category? 9:39 to 9:43...

Someone I know who is now retired from teaching had a rubber stamp, for use on students' papers, which would stamp "Snowjob". One might be surprised the number of times which I've wished to have it for use on the internet.

Just some food for thought. - jc37 04:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and I neglected to mention that every userbox (save one) currently listed at User:Drywontonmee/Userboxes are also "support/oppose" style userboxes.) - jc37 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after reading the userbox and category, the two don't seem to mesh well together. Best the category is deleted. Wizardman 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who pledged to use Mozilla Firefox 3.0 edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful to categorize users by what activity they pledge to do for purposes of encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How useful are other such "Wikipedian" categories useful for "encyclopedia building" activities? It is merely a subset of Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox. Then again I know IE lovers will line up to vote delete... :) In addition no such thing as a bad advertisement I suppose. Pay as little attention to me as possible. :P -- Cat ^chi? 07:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all I'd be in favor of deleting all of these categories, because - as you rightly point out - they have nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. I suppose they could be of some small, marginal value in terms of web design, but that's probably handled on the backend by developers anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a collaboratively written encyclopedia where users show each other the mutual respect not try to dictate each others userspaces. That is the last thing we need here (obviously). Such user categories are useful in finding other people sharing the same interest as you are in order to work collaboratively on the said topic. Thats a benefit and I cannot think of any harm of such categories. Your time could have been better spent had you spent this time writing articles or working on the back log rather than seeking mass deletion of categories and userboxes that are neither controversial or political. But like I said earlier on: "Pay as little attention to me as possible." -- Cat ^chi? 09:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The userspace with your name on it isn't yours, it's merely provided to help you communicate with other Wikipedians in order to facilitate the project. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing wrong with pledging to download Firefox 3.0, or even having a userbox on their user page saying that they are going to use Firefox 3.0. But we don't need a category of people who promised to use a particular web browser. Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox is sufficient to cover Firefox users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Paint edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category applies to almost every Wikipedia user. Most people who have used Windows have used this program at least once. Doubtful that this would be used to seek out editors willing to create images with paint, and even so, images created by paint aren't exactly the best of quality. In the end, I don't think that seeking out editors who use MS Paint is useful for the encyclopedia, and is essentially an all-inclusive category. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I wish I had something as simple and user-friendly on my Mac. It's the only thing I've lost and missed. —Over My Head 04:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is an irrelevant Category page. An idea that was ill thought out on my part. Dreamafter (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creator and everyone so far. Makes no sense as a useful cat. Speedy per WP:SNOW? — Becksguy (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had it been any other program I would at least consider keeping it, but MS Paint? -- Ned Scott 03:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Grand Rapids 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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Grand Rapids, Michigan for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 7 edit

Category:Wikipedians who have named themselves after gods edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale? The person who listed this gave no rationale, but I'll say this much: it is unencylopedic as a category. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete based on exhaustive precedent of deletion of useless categories. Horologium (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and precedent DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, borderline speedyable, no objections if another admin decides to do so. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please close This is ready to be closed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any speedy criteria, but a possible snowball. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 5 edit

Category:WikiProject [state] members 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. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the empty "WP state members" categories

Each of these is an empty category created around June 1 by Buaidh

Recently Buaidh created a bunch of categories that have remained empty. They may be for future wikiproject use, but are not currently used. Should these be speedied under {{db-c1}} or are they harmless (but in need of supercats)? JackSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buaidh replied and said the categories are fine to be deleted. I'll mark them with {{db-c1}} and a link here. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 4 edit

Category:Wikipedians with Meniere's Disease edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per extensive, unanimous precedent to delete "Wikipedians by medical condition" categories here. Can't see why it would help the encyclopedia to categorize users who have an inner ear disorder. If kept, would need a slight rename to match the article at Ménière's disease. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Past "precedent" is not unanimous. I'm tempted support keeping this category on principal, since I strongly believe many of the past medical condition user categories were useful for collaboration. However this one does seem to have a very narrow area of articles that it would benefit. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past precedent is unanimous if you only look at end result. Of course it wouldn't be unanimous if you count each editor who participated, and it would not be unanimous if you count debates that had their result later overturned, but only looking at the end result of each category under discussion would be unanimous to delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that there's only one user with such diesease. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like the National Hot Rod Association edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this category follows the wrong naming convention. "Who like" is only currently used for TV show categories. Additionally, the userbox that populates the category says "This user is a fan of the National Hot Rod Association". Finally, being a "fan" or "liking" a particular subject does not mean such users are interested in collaborating on topics related to that subject, so my first choice is deletion over a rename. If renamed, would need to conform to the convention at Category:Wikipedians who watch sports. I'm not a racing fan, but it seems to me that this could be too narrow of a topic for collaboration as well. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll get behind that, as it has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Norwegian-American 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: No consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians From Norway or of Norwegian Ancestry within the United States". As per unanimous precedent to delete or merge nationality-ethnicity combination categories, and per unanimous precedent to delete ancestry and expatriate categories, this category is not useful to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what do they harm, they adorn user pages. The average public user of the encyclopedia, doesn't look at user pages. Yet the categories allow users to be part of a greater community. In the days where social networking sites are the darling of the net, the categories, however frivolous, allow people to connect. The encyclopedia anyone can edit! or not. These categories were created by a lot of "anyones" but "some people" take themselves to be perhaps a bit more equal than others.[1]--K3vin (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K3vin. What "Xyz Wikipedian" category is, or is even intended to be, encyclopedic? Take away the community from the editors, and you'll have a lot less editors…and then where will Wikipedia be? ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per massive deletion of ethnic categories; this has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this fosters a sense of community, makes people happy and allows for easy contact if there is a project of interest to Norwegian-Americans. As far as making an encyclopedia user categories are separated from content and in no way interfere with it, besides, Norwegian-American Wikipedians is no less encyclopedic than Wikipedians who like Law & Order.

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

Category:Wikipedians in FFA edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is at National FFA Organization, so at minimum needs a rename. "The National FFA Organization is an American youth organization known as a Career and Technical Student Organization, based on high school classes that promote and support agricultural education". I'm not convinced we need a category for this. Are such users more likely to collaborate on particular articles? If so, would that list of articles be too narrow? Too broad? VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename to Category:Wikipedians in the National FFA Organization if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single article category. - jc37 06:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian snorkelers edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category says "Wikipedians interested in snorkeling", but populating userbox says "This user enjoys snorkeling". Either way, the category name does not reflect the members. Enjoying snokeling is not something we need to categorize. According to the article on Snorkeling, "Snorkeling requires no special training, only the ability to swim and to breathe through the snorkel". so categorizing such Wikipedians would not really group users by special skill. Finally, even if we renamed the category to Category:Wikipedians interested in snorkeling, it would seem that shorkeling is too narrow of a topic for collaboration, so my first choice is would be to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't call it a skill with a straight face. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like 666Satan edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to dredge up this debate again, but the problem with this category still exists, after more than a year since I first nominated it (see last UCFD). The problem with this category is that 666Satan redirects to O-Parts Hunter. There was a big debate over the name of the page, since apparently the name was changed when the series was americanized, but it looks like consensus has settled on the O-Parts Hunter name, so the category should follow suit per standard practices to match the category name with the article name. I suggest anyone who wants this kept at its current name try to get the article name changed, and at that point I will have no objection to returning it back to 666 Satan. At extreme minimum, this category needs a rename to place a space between 666 and Satan, as the article refers to it with a space in it. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like O-Parts Hunter as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to follow whatever the convention is. If it is as noted by the nominator (which I presume), then Support. (I honestly don't wish to go read about it again - I seem to recall having had to do so several times in the past : ) - jc37 06:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 1 edit

Category:Wikipedians in Ōsaka Prefecture edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Osaka Prefecture to match the spelling of the related article (Osaka Prefecture) and the userbox associated with the user category. Horologium (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Professionally edited English language encyclopedias (Ōsaka, Map of Ōsaka, Ōsaka, Japan)　and actual English spelling used at location spell it as Ōsaka. Ōsaka contrasts with Osaka, separate and real locations. Bendono (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is for Osaka, and which one is for Ōsaka? The latter is a redirect to the former. If you are referring to the city versus the prefecture, the prefecture is located at Osaka Prefecture, not Ōsaka Prefecture (which is a redirect). And again, your preference in spelling is simply not supported by the official websites of both the City of Osaka and the Prefecture of Osaka, neither of which use the macron in any of the pages in their English language sections. Using the spelling the governments of the cities and regions themselves use does not make Wikipedia "unprofessional". In fact, every single external link from Osaka and Osaka Prefecture uses the spelling without the macron, which makes it likely that your viewpoint is supported neither by references nor reality. Horologium (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is policy (it seems) to make categories conform to article names. If you want to have that argument (which I do not disagree with), take it to the article page. However, by following the procedures of cats, I !vote Speedy rename. —Over My Head 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There is no policy on the issue. There is a guideline, and it does not make that a requirement or even a suggestion. Please review Wikipedia:User categories#Naming conventions. Bendono (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this from the speedy section as per general practice if one is objected to, but as per nom I agree this should be renamed to match the article name. This isn't an official policy, but it is a de facto policy to increase ease of navigation. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in the Southern United States 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: 'Upmerge'. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent deletions of general area categories, categories like this are too broad to be useful when there are more specific categories available. In this case, the individual state's category should be fine, I see no encyclopedic purpose to generally categorize "people in the south" as opposed to their individual state. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I thought the same thing about WikiProject Southern United States, which hasn't been touched in about a year. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in the United States - I initially considered the possibility that this could be useful for members of WikiProject Southern United States, but they can just as easily use the individual state categories. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to upmerging. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cascadian 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: 'Upmerge'. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A listing of Wikipedians living in or associated with the Cascadia bioregion" - Cascadia redirects to Pacific Northwest, so this category at minimum needs a name change. However, my first choice would be deletion as an overly-broad location category where better, more specific categories exist. Does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize so broadly. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge into Category:Wikipedians in North America. While one could argue that the category is useful, for instance, for contacting those who can produce pictures of a specific plant species that is endemic to the Pacific Northwest, one could just as easily use Category:Wikipedians in Washington, Category:Wikipedians in Oregon, or Category:Wikipedians in British Columbia. Wikipedians by province/state is functionally the same as Wikipedians by ecoregion, but more standardised, more intuitive, and less complex. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to upmerging. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:German-American Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"People from Germany currently living in the United States, or Americans with German ancestry." - Niether of these features are helpful to Wikipedia to categorize. Ancestry categories have all been deleted, while expatriate categories have also been deleted. Furthermore, nationality-ethnicity combination categories have all been deleted or merged. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary intersection of ethnicity and nationality. Given the inclusion criteria, upmerging to one or both parents is likely to cause miscategorisation. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User template coder-c 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 program conditional templates. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"-c" is a made up indentifier and is not used for any other babel formatted category. The category description is "This user can use and program conditional templates", so I think it would be better renamed as Category:Wikipedians who program conditional templates or similar (since knowing "who use" them is not particularly helpful to the encyclopedia, I left that part out), or simply merged to Category:User template coder-5. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Ned Scott 05:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who program conditional templates (I don't think that the "can" is necessary). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds better, fixed. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Duluth 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Duluth, Minnesota for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Louisville 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Louisville, Kentucky for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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