Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | User‎ | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006)
< October 2006 December 2006 >

November 30 edit

Category:Member League of Copyeditors 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 to Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Though I may disagree with it, the nomination should probably be "members" rather than "participants", based on previous discussions. (At some time in the future, I think I may nominate them all to use a version of the word "Wikipedian".) - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (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:Wikipedia Weekly Podcaster 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:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2006 (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-stereotypical teenage 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 to category:Teenage Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is unique. Being a teenager that's not in this category suggests that you're stereotypical, which is highly unlikely to be true. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge into Category:Teenage Wikipedians (or just delete if there's no consensus for the merge). —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The userbox that adds people to this category also adds them to Category:Teenage Wikipedians. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but there could be some people who added themselves to the category separately from the userbox. Since a merge in this case is essentially the same as a delete (either way, the category gets deleted), I'm basically just suggesting that we looked for any differences between the categories before getting rid of this one. —Cswrye 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are 800 Wikipedians who want this category to exist, and I think that though I don't really understand it, it's a reasonable political statement. So I'm inclined to leave it alone. Failing that, though, it should merge with "Teenage Wikipedians."--Mike Selinker 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge/P2 Delete. It's practically an all-inclusive category. Teenagers who think they're non-stereotypical are indeed following a stereotype. They're just following a Freudian stage of life where they feel as though they're "rebelling", but rather, they're as liberal or conservative as the next Joe.--WaltCip 11:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - agreeing with WaltCip's comment above. - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally would judge a teenage Wikipedian differently if they were in this categoryfrom one who was not. It shows that they take the time to say they aren't the stereotype of teenagers that the world sees. Saying you are not a stereotype is NOT a stereotype itself. It does NOT mean you read books and go to coffee shops. Everyone in this category can be completely different. Tamajared 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bingo. EVERYBODY is completely different. Therefore, this category is not necessary.--WaltCip 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My edits mostly are made during school, where I do not learn anything." And you say you're not a stereotypical teenager. <rolls eyes>--WaltCip 01:09, 6 December 2006 (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:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Eagle 101 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 action taken. This category must be relisted with all others, because the only change is to a template which will affect all of them. If all are approved for deletion, the change can be made.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Eagle 101 - this category has only one "test account" listed, which the user quite clearly lists on his userpage. — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:00, 30 November 2006 (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:Not Drug Free 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 per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Not Drug Free Wikipedians - A "not" category.Also redundant with Category:Drug-using Wikipedians. VegaDark 09:39, 30 November 2006 (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.

November 29 edit

Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes - While I understand that there are those who support and oppose various legal issues, this one was resolved by consensus. See also Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about image use. So I believe whatever purpose it once served, it's now just a category that we should all belong to : ) - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should be implied as it's Wikipedia policy not to include fair use images in the userspace. VegaDark 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll assume that there exist no Wikipedians who wish to violate the law. -Amarkov blahedits 01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category no longer serves a purpose. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (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 are more than the sum of their 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 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes - Sounds like a "not" category. (And rather vague at that.) - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen in this category, it basically says that everything about the user is more than meets the eye, and simply cannot be defined through userboxes. Obviously this is going to be a very controversial topic, as the category consists of thousands of members, but it appears to be mathcruft. Interchangeable delete per nom.--WaltCip 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see any use for this category.Nobody is going to assume that people are only the sum of their userboxes unless people are in this category. VegaDark 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no good reason to delete it.Cameron Nedland 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Contrariwise, there's no good reason to keep it.--WaltCip 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this is fine for a userbox, there's no obvious reason why the userbox needs a category. --ais523 10:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - What does it mean to be more than the sum of one's userboxes? This category's just taking up space when a userbox is enough. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm glad that some users feel this way, but there's no purpose for a category. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (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.

November 28 edit

Category:Wikistress 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 by wikistress level.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (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.

November 26 edit

Locations 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: closing all as no consensus until a workgroup comes together to make a rational plan.--Mike Selinker 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The following discussions (from/of/on/born in) should probably all be read in order to determine concensus. Comments regarding each have been posted at times in only one or the other of the discussions. (I suppose I should have made this a single nomination, my apologies) - jc37 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Standard for Locations edit

The Location discussion appears to me that it will never end, as their is no official policy. Arguments for and against how a User category location can be described will always have objectors. I for one got extremely upset in a discussion on locations. But I do realise some order needs to be brought to locations.

The primary aim of any category is to aid in collaboration, so how do you set a wikipedia standard for all locations whether from/born/living/interest in/affinity for or something else. How would "passing through" aid collaboration? I am not for or against any particular method, but can someone come up with a standard that allows people to express where they are from, but also and more importantly to express what they wish to collaborate on.

There is no point in having all these discussions as the outcome on one discussion may be the direct opposite of another and so no standard is ever set and someone who prefers one method will challenge an already agreed contrary method. Perhaps this discussion on locations should have a dedicated area and instead of having all these independent discussions below, just have one discussion on how to sort them all out. NilssonDenver 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories up for discussion edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Glasgow edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Iowa edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Spokane edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Texas edit

Delete all or Rename, removing the word "born", to match other location categories. Otherwise, we'll eventually have (at least) two locations for every wikipedian: Where they were born, and where they live now. (I'm choosing to avoid the "from" confusion). - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting since I relisted the related "from" discussion below. - jc37 12:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment - I'm still on the fence about which way to go, so waiting to decide for now. - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and make this the standard. The Texans went crazy when I nominated their category last time, and this was the compromise. I think you can either be "in" some place, or you can be "born in" some place, but more gradation makes it problematic.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being "born in" somewhere seems a sufficiently specific (i.e. viable) category, as I guess it's possible to be born in one place, brought up somewhere else (be "from" somewhere else...?) and now live in a third place (be "in" a third place). So if Albert Einstein were a Wikipedian, I guess he could choose to sport all three kinds of categories: Wikipedians born in Germany, Wikipedians from Switzerland and Wikipedians in the United States. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds a bit like category creep : ) - At the very least, the "born in" categories should be merged to the "from" categories. jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In mainspace I guess it might be category creep, but as these are categories folk can use to describe themselves, they might want the option to use any and all three... David (talk) 04:17, November 25, 2006 (UTC)
    This is the exact problem which lead to creation of Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence. To give a concrete example, I was neither born in Kentucky, nor do I live there now, but I did live there for more than 20 years, and I identify strongly with the state, and contribute to a number of Kentucky articles. I would be excluded from a "born in" or "lives in category" -- do those categories really serve more purpose than simply saying "Texan," "Kentuckian," "Iowan," (or the less-defined "from")etc.? Cmadler 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, these were all of the "born in" categories. Is this a trend we want to start?Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country.- jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is one of those instances where a category could require a minimum number of members to be viable, e.g. if someone created the category Wikipedians from the Mojave phone booth but after N weeks/months it had less than (say) five members, then it would be deleted. (Maybe not feasible, probably would require a bot, ...)  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That means that all of the above would be deleted except texas. Also, these could all be renamed "from" and still be accurate (though possibly less "precise"). However, for collaboration purposes, I don't think we need to differentiate between "born in" and "from". The userbox obviously may be either or both, but there should only be a single category, if any. Also noting that "in" could apply to anyone who travels. ("Today I'm in Germany, and tomorrow I'm in France"). Maybe "from" should be the standard for all? - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Let's get through this, then make a broad proposal that all these locational categories become "from."--Mike Selinker 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that "from" is or would be used to mean "where I grew up", while "in" is or would be used to mean "where my home is now (even if I travel a great deal, etc)". Maybe a survey somewhere to see if any consensus over using any or all the following might clarify folks' wishes regarding their self-description:

Regards, David (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idle thought: As I look at Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, the introduction would seem to suggest that these should be included in those categories, with the format: <ethnicity/nationality>-ian Wikipedians. - jc37 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle.I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question. Erielhonan  22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sensitive area. Texans appear not to take kindly to changes either. NilssonDenver 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island edit

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island - This one should also be decided with the "from" categories below. - jc37 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey edit

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey - This one should be decided with the "from" categories directly below. (Please respond there : ) - jc37 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Argentina edit

Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge edit

Category:Wikipedians from Eritrea edit

Category:Wikipedians from Garneau edit

Category:Wikipedians from Kerala edit

Category:Wikipedians from Massachusetts edit

Category:Wikipedians from Queensland edit

Category:Wikipedians from Setúbal edit

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union edit

Delete all or Rename, changing "from" to "in", per consistency. (I guess I wasn't able to avoid "from", per "born" below : ) - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting for further discussion, and to remove any concerns due to tag removal - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment - as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these. - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by location --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "born in" versions. See below.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't even think about deleting this category. I have removed the category for deletion link from the article. I am highly insulted that you would discriminate against someone who wishes to express themselves as from the european union. You do not need to be born in the european union to be part of the european union. I could not believe it when I saw the link, I thought it was vandalism. NilssonDenver 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no discrimination here. The nomination is just one of many designed to bring the category system into some sort of consistency. Please do not accuse people of biases they do not have.--Mike Selinker 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't {{prod}}. I'll be re-adding the tag, so that people can find this discussion. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From" indicates to me a place of origin but not necessarily where the person now lives, whereas "in" indicates the opposite (i.e. the place where the person now lives but did not necessarily originate). So I guess you could be a "Wikipedian from X" and a "Wikipedian in Y", i.e. both types of category viable...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, this is all of the "from location" categories. Is this a trend we want to start?Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be fine with deleting them all as well.--Mike Selinker 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me deleting Wikipedians from the European Union is racist and discriminatory and I will fight this on these grounds. That is how strongly I fell about it. I will remove the link again in 24 hours if no one else places a more appropriate discussion category link and will keep removing the deletion link. There must be a better way of indicating a discussion on renaming a category is proposed but deletion I will continue to object to for this category. I am european and I will not be categorised as anything else. You may not understand the depth of feeling I have on this subject and I understand you may be trying to make wikipedia more efficient and/or readable but you have touched on a nerve. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by NilssonDenver (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 November 2006
  • Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). - jc37 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle.I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question. Erielhonan  22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing peoples right to express the nationality and/or where they live. You cannot be allowed to categorise somebody to suit your needs. I am furious with this. I am from the european union. My passport tells me I am.

If you tell the scottish wikipedians who are proud to be scottish that you want to remove their scottishness from wikipedia I know you will have a fight on your hands. I am from the european union, if I move to the USA am I now categorised as North American. Stop now what you are doing. You have chosen without discussion on the Wikipedians from european union category page to propose deletion. You are the one trying to prove a point of trying to recategorise to suit what you want. I am putting back what is supported by those people who are proud to be wikipedians from the european union.

If you take on other nationalities you will get the same anger, that someone would just change/remove or delete their expression of nationality or anything else they wish to express themselves by.

People can be living in, born in, proud to be part of a country, leave well alone. I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to prevent people who freely contribute to this site being categorised to suit an index. A user can classify themselves in many ways. You can not be permitted to prevent users to express themselves.

If more categories are needed than let them be added. Who decides if a category is suitable or not? If I am a pipe smoking, scottish nationalist, living in australia I want to be categorised that way. Until someone comes up with the perfect indexing system leave it as it is.

Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). So I am restoring the category to where it was before you interfered without any discussion. NilssonDenver 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to whom is this comment directed?The unsigned EU Scot? -  Erielhonan  00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume to me, since it's a near duplicate of something I said above. - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to be clear about this: Do not delete the tag. I will roll back any attempt to circumvent the discussion. Civilly express whatever opinions you want here, but do not attempt to hide the discussion from others.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok let us be civil. jc37 and Mike Selinker On what grounds will you delete Category:Wikipedians from the European Union. On what grounds will you delete any category that expresses a place born, lived in or from.
  • You started a deletion process without an idea as to how it should end. You were uncertain yet you felt the need to mark a category for deletion.
  • "as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these." - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me this is vandalism. If I feel some category does not feel right, can I go right along mark a page for deletion without giving a reason or suggestion. Talk first, come up with suggestions, then act would be a polite way to do things.
  • Lets take Scotland as an example. There are Category:Scottish Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Scotland categories. Category 1 does not mean you have to be living in Scotland, but you are scottish. Category 2 are wikipedians living in but not necessarily from Scotland. What will yo do with these categories?
  • I advise that you do not try and reclassify these users as they are expressing themselves in different ways. Some may even be expressing both. As  Erielhonan  wrote Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle.I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question.
  • You can tidy up indexes but you must not stop freedom of expression.
  • I would suggest that you refrain from marking a category for deletion. Renaming or moving may not bring out as strong a response as mine, but when it comes to country, nationality, location you will have a battle without support from the entire wikipedia community.
  • I was born in, I am living in, I hold a passport from. Some may aspire to be, working in, passing through, refugee from. If you want change on this area, start at the top with a working group. Don't pick on particular categories because they don't fit someones index. Change in this area would require great reorganisation. Is this a project worth pursuing. This is the question you should put out there?
  • Now we have a category being discussed for deletion and a precedent being set that will affect all categories. My suggestion is stop right now, find an area to discuss nationalities and location, and if the wikipedians want change let them decide if nationalities or locations or any description should be limited or expanded. I again suggest you stop right now as this is too sensitive an area to mess with. Come with ideas before staring a deletion process and remove the category deletion from Category:Wikipedians from the European Union NilssonDenver 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I mean this in no way disrespectful, but I think much of your concern above is due to a misunderstanding of Categories fordiscussion. Just because someonething is labelled for deletion, doesn't mean that that is the only possible outcome. I am limited by only being able to place one tag, and to place the "renaming" tag requires a target for the rename. In this case, I had no idea, and "deletion" was also an option. therefore, the obvious solution was to tag it as a "deletion", and when someone comes here for the discussion they will be able to see the options, and perhaps even suggest some of their own. In all, please assume good faith.Believe it or not, if you'll take a moment to check out my userpage, I tend towards inclusionism (Wikipedia is not paper), and eventualism. So I always do a bit of a double-take when someone suggests that I am a deletionist : ) - I just like orderly organisation, and I believe that developing naming conventions/standards is helpful for everyone. I just don't think that having 3 or more different ways to say something about where a wikipedian is "from" is helpful. It tends to spread them across categories, rather than unify them for ease of navigation/finding. I hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 11:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Messing with nationalism is dangerous. How people express themselves whether they are proud to be living in the European Union or from the European Union you cannot take away that right. To box someone in under a category to suit an index is asking for trouble. If you delete the European Union category then how will I express my relationship with the European Union. It still annoys me that you would place this category up for discussion without proper thought as to what should happen with this category.
  • Are you supporting this category's deletion? Who decides now where this discussion ends? I support both living in the European Union and from the European Union and I will not prevent any user from declaring their beliefs as long it is non offensive and then offensiveness is another policy decision for a working group.
  • So please answer my question, when does this end? Will the right to declare yourself as Wikipedians living in the European Union and Wikipedians from the European Union be removed. If you are an inclusionist you cannot remove the right to express onesself because you want a nice tidy index.
  • Note I picked Scotland as an example as there is a proud Scottish Wikipedian who is a Wikipedian from the European union, living in England whose right to express this information will be removed. And I am telling you now, you don't want to mess with the ScottishWikipedians both from and living in categories :-)
  • So to conclude 1. No deletion; 2. Have at least 2 categories for the European Union, living in and from the; 3. Stay away from users national declarations; 4. If you feel that the current indexes are too unorganised, work through the process of getting wikipedia policy set, however that is done; 5. Decide when this discussion will run its course. NilssonDenver 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to speak to Nilsson's point about freedom of expression. While it is one of our alienable rights as citizens, it is irrelevant to this discussion. The category system, and indeed all of the userpage activities on Wikipedia, fall under the policy Wikipedia is not webspace. If a user wants to express himself fully, that's what webpages are for. Here we are trying to decide what the basis for a collaborative category system is. In this particular case, we are faced with five different and somewhat overlapping structures which may never be easy to rationalize into a smaller group. If so, that's fine; we'll end up with "in" and "from" and "born in" categories until another group (possibly the proposed workgroup) comes along to straighten it out. But let's avoid the indiscriminate labels of people being racist or discriminatory or stifling of expression. This discussion will run its course when the time runs out on the nomination in a few days, which will only get extended if someone decides to delete the tag yet again. And especially, Nilsson, regardless of how annoyed you are, you need to lay off the threats of who we "don't want to mess with," because that more than anything else will lead to your own freedom of expression being stifled with a block. I hope we're clear on this.--Mike Selinker 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Please remember that this is a discussion. It doesn't mean that any categories automatically get deleted. In fact, the nomination mentioned the possiblity of a renaming. The appearance of this group of categories was just to try to get consensus on their merits and how they can best benefit Wikipedia. No person or group was being attacked by this nomination. The existence of these categories, as well as their name, depends on what consensus determines is best for collaboration, because that is ultimately why user categories exist. —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a now more concilatory mindset and apologetic demenour and having read around about wikipedia policy here are my thoughts expressed calmly :-)
    While categories may have been designed for a particular use, rightly or wrongly, they are used as items by a user to express themselves. Their user pages are not enough. If there was an original policy on user categories it has not been enforced and to enforce it now will, as I have shown, cause friction between those who wish to apply the policy as they believe it was originally envisaged and those who see it differently.
    WP:NOT#WEBSPACE"The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration" this is wikipedia policy. It can be argued that placing a category showing your location from or in would help collaboration as you can find users local to you or users in an area you wish to examine, combined with other user categories can narrow your search.
    WP:UC Wikipedia:User categorization is not considered a guideline on Wikipedia at this stage.
    User Categories seems to be the one that evolved beyond that of what its original creators taught it might become and is now so well established as an expression of many things, to remove it will be to confuse users understanding of what it is. There appears to me to be no definitive policy on user categories and while a project has been started it still has no "official" status. If a user page is to help collaboration on wikipedia, a huge cleanup would be required as user pages I have seen have many references that I cannot see how they would help with collaboration.
    As much as Wikipedia is suppose not to be a social network it has the traits of a social network. We all collaborate on this project, we communicate, we add data and create information for articles, we discuss, we argue, we fight, we sulk, we yell and we find expression on our user page. Wikipedia is alive. Its users have given it life and it is evolving. It may be outgrowing its software limitations and cannot cope easily with many indices (indexes). To standardise wording, such as every category must start with "Wikipedians" would help efficiency, to remove categories would be to take the heart from Wikipedia, and remove the diversity that users express themselves by. I came to wikipedia to add my knowledge freely and have stayed because of the variety of users and contributions, the diversity of expressions and I have watched it grow exponentially.
    Effective collaboration are words used in Wikipedia policy, but how now do you define effective collaboration. 1,500,000 articles, I don't know how many users, but the system appears to be working. Wikipedia is alive and expressing itself in so many ways. I hope it does not become strangled by efficiency, organised it should be, restrictive it should never be. NilssonDenver 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See now, that's a fine argument. I can't say I disagree with any of that. Thanks for changing your tone rather than your tune.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    General agreement with MS directly above - And you listed some good descriptions as to why we do have location-based user categories. And, personally, I don't believe that we should delete the truely location-based categories, either. However, the system needs clean-up. (To use a metaphor, the bush needs pruning in order to foster healthy growth.) So, if we accept that location-based categories are justifiable, two things then yet need addressing in this case: Do we need a category to group such Wikipedians, rather than just a userbox or other userpage notice (I believe so, in this case); and how should such groupings (and groups of groupings) be named, in working towards a standardisation in naming. I believe that the categories should be unified as much as possible, while yet following precision, to help unify such groupings, for easier navigation/searches. (etc etc etc.) - jc37 10:04, 28 November 2006 (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:Chocoholic 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chocoholic Wikipedians - The userbox that populates this cat: "This user eats chocolate." - Guess that makes it a food cat : ) - jc37 19:37, 26 November 2006 (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:Kilt-wearing 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians - someone mentioned clothing categories below : ) - jc37 19:33, 26 November 2006 (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:Reclusive 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reclusive Wikipedians - Wikipedians who hide away from the world for various reasons. - jc37 19:26, 26 November 2006 (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 respect the beliefs of others 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who respect the beliefs of others - I presume this includes everyone? : ) - jc37 19:04, 26 November 2006 (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:Politically incorrect 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Politically incorrect Wikipedians - The userbox should be enough. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one at least states a position that's vaguely political. I guess it's technically a "not" category, but it's okay with me.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't see how anything more than the userbox is "useful". - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. Herostratus 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — says something Wikipedianishly relevant about people's positions on things (i.e., may be relevant to editing activitiesand may quite well "facilitate collaboration" or reduce strife - one may moderate one's comments to someone based on a categorization like this, if one understands that the other person is "coming from" a particular stance out of habit/belief.)I personally find it rather valuable to understand other editors' socio-political viewpoints, and I find that such information often auto-explains edits or statements in Talk that would otherwise be inexplicable.PS: It's not a "not" category, at all.Being consciously "politically incorrect" is an affirmative stance, a position, not simply a reaction to something; to see it as just a negative reaction is to be missing the point, I suspect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category doesn't really apply to many articles, so I doubt it would help with collaboration. If anyone wants to use it to make a statement about themselves, a userbox or statement on their user page will suffice. —Cswrye 23:27, 1 December 2006 (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 userboxes for religious reasons 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for religious reasons - Duplicative of Category:Wikipedians by religion. - jc37 18:34, 26 November 2006 (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:Oprahist 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oprahist Wikipedians - This is populated by this userbox. It's obviously not an actual religion. On this page (the category's only member, which is a storage gallery), it's listed under "religious humor". - jc37 18:29, 26 November 2006 (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 are androgynous when online 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are androgynous when online - Essentially: "People who have a pronoun preference, or a lack thereof, when online" - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see a need for a category in this case. - jc37 18:07, 26 November 2006 (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 want iPods 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who want iPods - Similar to the wanting cats or dogs below. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with whatever the liking iPods category is. No collaboration value from this alone. -Amarkov blahedits 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into category:Wikipedians who use iPods. If someone in this category hasn't ever used an iPod, well, they can delete themselves from it.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mike above. NikoSilver 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merging with the category of iPod users would just be silly. Read the userbox: "This user does not have an iPod, but wants one". Deleting the category is OK, I suppose, but merging it with a totally different, opposing category is silly. — Gary Kirk // talk! 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value beyond Category:Wikipedians who use iPods, and it doesn't mean the same thing, so a merge doesn't make sense. —Cswrye 23:28, 1 December 2006 (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 Rogue Nation 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation - Believe it or not, this is a food category (well, drink, anyway). - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's actually a fairly big organization of people, so even though it's a food category, it meets the definitions of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a bit tipsy, but the presence of such things as Scarborough Country or Savage Nation permits this category's usage.--WaltCip 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is that different than a category of: 'Wikipedians who drink alcohol"? Except it's more focused? I'd bet that there are even more people that eat apples (or eat at McDonald's) than members of the rogue nation, but we've disallowed those... And how about the members of the Burger King's kids club? : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, it's a weak keep. It fails on the food front but succeeds on the organization front. I'm generally going to vote keep in that case, but you may go another way.--Mike Selinker 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no article for this, so even if it is a legitimate organization, it's not notable enough to merit a category since there's nothing to collaborate on. —Cswrye 23:30, 1 December 2006 (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.

Admins edit

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats - Duplicates Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More useful than the Wikipedia page is, (or would be if properly populated) and corresponds with the admin category. --tjstrf talk 11:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment: Easier for navigation and automatically maintainable. We wouldn't delete Category:Wikipedia administrators, would we? Duja► 11:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I like the idea, it's not being used, and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats also makes clear about how active they are as well, rather than just a big list. Besides, this duplicates a special page as well (Special:Listusers). - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Listusers has a combo? Learn something new every day... I'll change my mind, at least for a while. Duja► 12:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Categories have advantages over lists, and in fact, they are generally preferred over them. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, actually. See WP:CLS. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with that guideline, and I still think that this is a case where a category is appropriate. Since it will appear on the user's userpage, anyone looking at the user can simply click on the link if they need to find other bureaucrats rather than having to try to find the list (which they may not even know exists). -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Keep per others.--WaltCip 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though you're supporting the nom, I have to ask... Did you check out the category? : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Category:Wikipedia administrators. -- nae'blis 17:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful to know who the 'crats are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, I don't disagree that " it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find". - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation about how to find the special page to the category (it doesn't seem to have a URL for 'crats specifically). Wow, that category needs populating. --ais523 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Nod, hence my comments above : ) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — it's a valid categorization, and even relevant to Wikipedian activities.Leave it.Agree that it "should include them all", but the fact that it doesn't presently isn't sufficient grounds for category deletion.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Hardly vital, but nonetheless useful.Alai 18:58, 1 December 2006 (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:Wikipedia administrators edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia administrators - The admins by nationality subcats can be merely recategorised as subcats of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. Delete the parent cat and all its members as a duplication of Special:Listusers and Wikipedia:List of Administrators. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one's really useful, and delightfully simple in its name.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, but many users don't use the "Special" feature. For those who use the category system, this allows users to find administrators that want to list themselves there.--Mike Selinker 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Special:Listusers isn't well known, and categories have advantages over lists, so this is better than Wikipedia:List of Administrators. The admins by nationality subcats are fine, but I still think it's good to have all of the admins listed in a single place. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong and Very Speedy Keep - It would be shame for us non-administrators to have it deleted. Just the other day I was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. This catgory isn't just showcase for some of the best Wikipedians and a source for inspiration, it is also a extremely good platform to ask for help, often better than the Pump. Please, try and delete a hundred thousand other ridiculous, confusing or useless categories. Leave this one out. I'd rather propose to make it more comprehensive and put all admins to it. - 06:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    As stated in the nomination, the "admins by nationality/ethnicity" sub-categories would be Kept, I am merely suggesting that the umbrella category be deleted as a duplication. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Easy one-click to a useful list.Gets a newbie there fast when needed. Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, logical supercat. -- nae'blis 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct/correct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. (if anything, I think I'd argue for deletion of the list rather than the category) ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned under Bureaucrats, above: "Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below." - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Perfectly sensible category with a useful application. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.In this case, the size of the set argues fairly strongly for a category instead of (or rather, as well as) a list (or indeed, various lists, as is presently the case).Alai
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:Wannabe rouge admins 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wannabe rouge admins - These get funnier and funnier : ) - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete, listify if wanted. - as nominator. - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator

 . Well, the intention was to add an additional level of irony; the parent category survived the CfD so I see no particular reason to delete this as well. (Not that I'd mind too much, basically this is a question of how much messy humor we're ready to tolerate). Duja► 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I'm someone who would champion the idea that we should preserve humour on Wikipedia : ) - However, I think in this case it would be much better as a List rather than a category. Otherwise, we're opening ourselves up to having categories of humourous categories, and I don't think that that would be a good idea. - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mentioned it, it actually struck me as an excellent idea

 . Now seriously, is there a policy on user categories? We seem to be discussing on I like it/I dislike it level. Most of the ones that you're now putting under scrutiny were tolerated so far as "no big deal" or "they do no harm"; I realize that is not the approach we take in article space, but I'm fairly undecided as to what set of rules should apply to UCs as well. Duja► 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My guidelines are based on a condensation of User:Cswrye's guideline for user categories. Here's the rule I use: A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful because of the utility of the category nominated below.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify "utility"? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides humour value, what's the usefulness? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I can't think of any. The Rouge admin category should stay, but I can't justify this one. Delete.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See discussion below. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's rouge, then there's wannabe rouge which just kills it. --Majorly (Talk) 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like Duja's category.--Aldux 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above argument is the same butchered "Keep it because I like it!" argument used by the Esperanzan police. There's no need for vague humor on a website that attempts to provide integral information.--WaltCip 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if you want to be a Rouge admin, nothing is stopping you except perhaps a lack of a healthy respect for your own sense. Horrible thing to categorise. I get the joke, but the category is not useful. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly more useful than the "main" category (free RFA oppose with every usage), but should logically be deleted if that one is.Alai 18:56, 1 December 2006 (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:Rouge admins 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rouge admins - It's humour, but since there is an associated humour page: Wikipedia:Rouge admin, the category should probably go. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete, listify if wanted. - as nominator. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and is a part of Wikipedians by philosophy. I'd also like to mention that user categories are far more useful than user lists because they don't have problems with going out of date, so listify is not imo a valid alternative. --tjstrf talk 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tjstrf. Oh no, the cabal can't possibly let you do that; we'll all climb the Reichstag if this gets deleted. Duja► 11:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment in the nom directly above. : ) - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was on a CfD before (like about everything related with WP:ROUGE)? Duja► 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to Rouge users. NikoSilver 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely a useful group category. (Though I'd love it if they'd support a rename to category:Wikipedians in the Rouge admins.)--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides humour value, what's the usefulness? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People would like to know who are the members of the cabal. Besides, why do you seek for usefulness besides humor value? Duja► 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It adds nothing that a simple list couldn't do better; but why do we need a list? surely all admins are rouge admins by definition? Abtract 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not true, see below... many admins are very process centric and not at all willing to Do the Right Thing if it requires IAR. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I like Wikipedia:Rouge admin; it's funny, and it makes a good point. However, I fail to see how a category adds to that humor or helps make a point. If it's important for an admin to be list him- or herself as a Rouge admin, perhaps they should consider creating a list on the article itself. That may even be more effective in that it would let people who visit the page immediatly see who the Rouge admins are. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The easy fix there is to just have a link to the category, described as a way to see who is in it, on that page. No need for a list. The case that a list is better than a category in this instance has not been made. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I {{sofixit}}-ed it. :) it's linked now. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a list isn't better than a category. They're both pointless in this case since the page is about humor anyway. At least with a list, everything is kept in one place, and it avoids having to go to multiple pages to catch the humor. Also, far too many humor categories get created, and it doesn't reflect well (and can even be perceived as hypocritical) to delete them while letting admin keep their humor category. Besides, I've chosen to rebel against the cabal, and I'm taking it down one rouge admin at a time! :-) —Cswrye 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT or just trying to be funny? This category is not *just* humor, which point seems to be lost on some. This is a useful category, as are many categories that identify some subset of admins. (As before, consider Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles... very useful as a category, less useful as a list and would be more work to maintain) 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) .
Please, settle down! I thought it was obvious that the last line was just humor, but I really meant the rest of it. I'm starting to understand the point you've been making below that this distinguishes admins who focus more on ignoring all rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia from those who focus more on following proper process. That does make sense to me, and I'm on the verge of changing my vote to "keep". However, I do have a question. How does the category relate to Wikipedia:Rouge admins? The point that the humor page makes is that admins follow policy and consensus even though many users complain about them suppressing The Truth™, which doesn't have anything to do with WP:IAR. By the way, this doesn't mean that I've given in to the cabal. —Cswrye 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reasoning how this category harms Wikipedia.  Grue  09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Aside from being an essential part of Wikipedia culture, there's something quite serious hidden behind this "humorous" category; it's made clear in WP:ROUGE.Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you have my curiosity peaked. I've re-read that article, and I don't see any purpose for the category, in that article, serious or otherwise. What am I missing? - jc37 15:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid category for admins with a broad interpretation of WP:IAR, if humorous. -Amarkov blahedits 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless fun. --Majorly (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duja.--Grand Slam 7 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the history of Wikipedia. Being placed in the category is part of the gag....Promotes a whistle while you work attitude. --FloNight 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, is it useful to know who considers themselves (or is considered by their peers) a Rouge admin? I feel it is. Humor stripped aside, admins in this category have stated explicitly they are willing to Ignore all rules and processes, as needed, for the good of the encyclopedia. Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important. Whether you agree with one view or the other, surely you would agree there is a distinction and it is a distinction with a difference. Knowing who is in which camp is not in and of itself divisive, so there is indeed encyclopedic value and use in knowing who is ROUGE. Second, then, given that there is value in knowing this, is it better to have a category or a list? Consider that we have Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles as a category... On the other hand we have Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks as a list. I think rather than moving categories to lists (in general not the way we do things, lists are inferior to categories) we ought to be moving current lists to categories. Third, this has been brought up before... Therefore Keep. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part has nothing to do with this discussion (though I thought it was a nice overview, and we should link to it should anyone attempt to delete the article), since in no way does this nomination suggest that the article (or any associated userboxes) be removed. I disagree with your comments about lists and categories (See WP:CLS, as I've noted at your other similar comments). Each has their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do appreciate that you did understand that this is about the grouping, which apparently has been confused by several people. Other than FLoNight's comment above, I haven't heard a single reason why the category should be kept. And her rationale is concerning because that means it's a category that you're placed in by other Wikipedians (not everyone has the same sense of humour). My thoughts on this are in total agreement with what User:Cswrye summed up above.- jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list if you want it to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. I also note that your opening argument is that because this is humor it should not be a category. That's a nonsequiteur that the first part of my response addresses, so it's not true that "The first part has nothing to do with this discussion" as you state. Note that you also state, above "I don't see any purpose" and I've refuted that as well. Are you ready to concede that either a categeory or a list is needed, and that having neither would be less optimal than where we are now? If so we can stick to why a category is better in this instance, but if not, we need to flatten the issue of why one or the other IS a good thing to have first.++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't see a need even for a list. I was merely saying I wouldn't oppose one, if wanted. There are many humour pages in project space, and this is/would be just one more. As I believe I've said repeatedly, I just don't see the need for a group for this. WHat i've yet to see in your responses is a reason to keep besides "because I want it kept" and "because categories are better than lists". If that's the sum total of your position, that's fine. Whether I agree with it or not, it's a valid enough perspective. But what I'm looking for is a tangible use. If it's only because it's admins who support WP:IAR, then the category gets deleted, because we all should follow the WP:5P. That includes interpreting WP:IAR. So far I haven't seen anything even close to usefulness as a category, except as a userpage notification. And whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant. To reiterate: Give me something of substance. Otherwise, this is no different than: "Category:Admins who support Wikipedians being WP:CIVIL". (Which would also be deleted, for the same, obvious reasons.) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you're reading what I am saying here. "Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important" is a pretty clear justification for the existance of this category. You can argue that all admins should be identical, but they are not. We have some people who are very Willy-Wonka (very process centric) and some people who are very Red Rider (very IAR centric). Unless you're prepared to demand uniformity, knowing who is who is goodness. So a list or a category is a good thing to have. Don't you agree? If not, why not? And... categories are better than lists in this particular usage as already explained. QED. (no personal preference given in this recap of my argument whatever) ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clear up a point... Any admin put in this category is going to understand the category. Admins in this category are not Wimps... They can stay in it or remove themselves as they desire. That is understood. IMO, you are looking for a solution to a problem where none exists by deleting this category. FloNight 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand your perspective on this. And it's "possible" that you're misreading my overall intention, since we are (as we often do in XfD) getting bogged down in details : ) - Read my latest response to Lar, directly above, and perhaps that will clarify. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duja - don't try defying the CABAL, or else... ;-)--Aldux 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come now, what possible aid in collaboration can we get from this? "Humor." This category simply does not pass the laugh test.--WaltCip 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry WaltCip that you do not Get It. But this category is an important aid to collaboration. I observed the recent induction of an admin into the category. I can assure you that something good happened for this person and Wikipedia that day. This type of humorous interaction between users is part of the culture of Wikipedia. We need to Make More positive interactions between users Not Delete aids to our existing ones. --FloNight 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, I don't think that the category is needed for this. The same effects could be "effected" by placing any sort of notice on the user's pages (userbox or otherwise). It would seem to me to achieve the same effect, without the need for a category.However, can you explain further? Perhaps I am missing something. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shows an admin has a sense of humor, and sense. Concur with FloNight that you're looking for a solution to a non-problem. Please go to Wikipedia:Cleanup for problems which actually require attention. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the description on the category page actually implies a negative thing, and for humour, the Wikipedia page is enough. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Humour is a relatively important part of anything, including Wikipedia. Harmless and humourous; I see no valid reason to delete other than redundancy with the WP page. (Which it isn't, really; WP:ROGUE is informative, and Catergory:Rogue is a category. The two serve similar but separate purposes; that's why the Category: namespace is seperate from the Wikipedia: one. Ourai т с 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a part of our unique culture. What is up with the fears? Good for moral lifting, etc. Reminds me of cutting up in the back of the classroom when we should have been boning up for that test… JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh! 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far this is looking to be no consensus or delete, unless you people can provide a point other than "harmless and funny".--WaltCip 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment You may also want to see WP:ILIKEIT. The arguments are either "It's funny", "It's useful", "It's harmless", and "Why don't you deal with the other trash instead of this one." Practically an example of N.G. arguments.--WaltCip 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete.Not funny, divisive (which is somewhat ironic, given the trigger-happy treatment given other such templates and categories on ROUGE/IAR pretexts) and serves no useful purpose in developing or maintaining an encyclopaedia -- quite the reverse.Arguments to keep are both extremely weak, and fundamentally inconsistent -- between broadly, those that (in my view wrongly) regard it as harmless and hilarious BOFH humour, and those that (in my view even more wrongly) regard the BOFH as a good model of sysopping.If those keenest on IAR had a modicum of introspection and consistency, they'd delete this out of hand.Alai 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Keep, Rename Category:Rogue Wikipedia admins. Blarneytherinosaur talk 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine those that crack up at the current version would argue that this would decrease the alleged hilariousness thereof, diminish the trowelling on of the irony, unacceptably reduce the mockery of the notional antagonists of the membership, etc, etc.Alai 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just my two cents. I figure if we needed to rename all the sporting cats to include "Wikipedia" or "Users", it might be worth mentioning here. Far be it from me to deminish humour! Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's certainly true, as a "user category" it logically would follow one of those schemes, aside from the rogue/rouge thing.Alai 01:28, 2 December 2006 (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 don't wish to become administrators edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators - Another "not" category. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand why someone wouldn't (it took a long time for me to agree to become one), but it's not something I'd declare.--Mike Selinker 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's their decision what they declare. Not allowing someone the option of saying no seems a little like restricting speech. Blast 11.24.06 0149 (UTC -5)
    They're still allowed the userbox, or userpage statement, We're just removing the category. (At this point, does anyone else think that we should specifically and distinctly specify this at the top of this page?) - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc37 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discount keeps - The "NOT" system for listing categories states that there's no point in listing categories that say such things as "Wikipedians who don't have third arms", as we have discussed in the previous CfDs. Also, ad infinitum, this could include an infinite number of people in Wikipedia. The arguments provided for the keeps are unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 November 2006
  • Rename to Wikipedians who are content to remain rank-and-file editors.Takes the bitter taste of not out of it.It's a useful category. Erielhonan  22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for those interested in retaining their "user" privileges. -- nae'blis 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not categories such as "Wikipedians who do not like cheese" are stupid, as not liking cheese implies absolutely nothing in the affirmative. Not wanting to be an administrator does imply affirmative statements. -Amarkov blahedits 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful category that can help avoid wasted efforts asking people if they want to be nominated. --Majorly (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think that the userbox which populates this category is enough? - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but no reason for deletion. --Majorly (Talk) 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it can be (a reason for deletion).The Wikipedian categories are essentially about fostering collaboration. This category is about division ("I don't want"). Whether it's just a genuine lack of interest, or a sincere statement about how they feel about admins or adminship, doesn't really matter... The category in no way helps towards collaboration, promotes or at least decalares a division. Hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think others have made the case that it does help toward collaboration. Users in this category don't want to be harassed about becoming admins, they just want to edit. That does not promote division, it helps avoid giving needless offense. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a notice on a userpage does that. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful category. Rename if you like but knowing who does not want to be an admin is useful, and categories are more useful than lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and make the case that in this case a list is better, then. WP:CLS isn't policy last I checked, and maybe it needs some work to boot, in reading it over I found a fair bit to disagree with. IF that case is valid, and you let us know when you've populated such a list and publicised to the users that are in this category that there is a list and they need to maintain their membership in it, I'll change my thinking, in this case. But you haven't made the case that a list is better than a category in this case yet that I can see. By default, the category is a better choice (c.f. the MANY AfD's against lists that merely say "category exists" as their argument for deleting the list, which then carries and the list is deleted).Also, are you conceding there's a need for either a list or a category by saying a list is better? Or are you doing the defense in depth of "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" that lawyers use?++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" - I may have to quote you... That made me laugh out loud : ) - Oh and I've responded to this same line of questioning above in the other admin nominations, though I suppose I can repeat it here (again)if you would like. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Category name does not imply "bitterness" or anything of the sort.There are plenty of users who probably do not want the weight of admin responsibility, not out of bitterness, but just because that's who they are.In fact, at least at the moment, I consider myself one of those people.Even if I could become an admin, I wouldn't want to.The category is both useful and non-divisive. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a grouping of wikipedians who express that choice, useful? (They still can declare that choice through a comment on their talk page, or a userbox, etc.) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are nice and visible at the very bottom of a user page. Talk page messages and userboxes get overlooked. That's how it is useful ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above: "whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant." And for that matter, nothing from stopping you from placing such a link at the bottom of your userpage as well. If the only arguement is "because it's a userpage notice", then my comment is "Strong Delete", because categories shouldn't be used only for that purpose. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have with that argument (and, yes, you do seem to be using the lawyerly defense in depth here, when one argument is refuted, you pop up with another one) is that ANYTHING can be done a different way. that something CAN be done a different way does not mean that it SHOULD be done. Having a representation category at the very bottom of your userpage is a useful attribute that cannot be achieved any other way. You can put it CLOSE to the bottom, but not IN the category section. Is this the strongest argument in favour? no. But it's one you cannot counter by saying "you can achieve it another way". For if that were true, we could well delete every template. Everything a template achieves CAN be done another way. And that's an absurd idea, isn't it?For much ease of use results from using templates... ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lawyerly defense"? Apparently I see this discussion differently than you do. I think I've stated my reasons for the nomination rather clearly by now. What you apprently see as "lawyerly defense", I see as "responding to your comments". Or in other words, "discussing" : ) - And it isn't because it can "be done another way", it's because we shouldn't merely use categories as notices. A page link is enough. Categories are groupings, which also act as links to those groupings. As I said, if your "arguement" (your word) is that you want the category kept because you see it useful as a "page link", then my answer is "Strong and Speedy Delete". - jc37 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories: Eventualist Wikipedians | Inclusionist Wikipedians | Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion | Structurist Wikipedians | WikiProject Comics members | WikiProject Greyhawk participants | WikiProject Middle-earth participants | Wikipedians who read Tolkien | WikiProject Star Wars members | Wikipedians who participate in the Comics Collaboration of the Month | Wikipedians who participate in the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week are the categories I see at the bottom of your user page. That's a shedful. Aren't all those categories things that you could just as easily note via a comment? Could they all be lists instead? Why did you add yourself to those categories? So that people could find you easily, right? Or was it some other reason? Whatever reason you give, applies here too (and to all the other categories you've nommed), once it is shown they are useful distinctions to make. What I mean when I say Lawyerly defense is that when I show that it's a useful distinction, you argue that it doesn't need to be a category, and when I show why it needs to be a category, you argue that it isn't a useful distinction. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's take those each, step by step:
    • The "-ist" categories - Among several other things, these are part of a media wiki structure. See: m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. They also may be used as a part of scientific research. (See m:Wikiresearch.) So I think there is a good chance that they pass the bar as "useful".
    • The WikiProject participants/members are very clearly an awesome example of usefulness by collaboration. As are the "Collaboration of the Week/Month".
    • "...who read Tolkien" - The various "Wikipedian by interest" categories follow the same pattern. it's a grouping of people who are interested in a topic, therefore, one may presume that they may know "something" about that topic, and as such should be helpful in collaboration.
    • The "Wikipedians who support..." some Wikipedian cause or issue - These are useful as groupings so that those who are discussing the issue , or in the process of writing up an essay/guideline/whatever on the issue, may find others who are also interested in the issue, and just like the other "Wikipedians by interest" categories, we presume that such people should have at least some modicum of knowledge (and of course, interest) about said topic, and thus may also be interested in collaboration.
    The point to them all, is that there is a point to the grouping: useful collaboration of some type. So how does this category qualify? It's actually a category of "Wikipedians who would rather not collaborate as administrators". Which is perfectly fine, except that there is no need for the grouping. Wikipedian categories should exist to be a notice and grouping. As I mentioned above, if it's "notice only", then I suggest delete, since a "notice" is all that's needed. - jc37 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was just about to ask a user whether s/he wanted to be an admin sometime, and found this cat at the bottom of their page. Seems useful enough, and not everybody likes userboxes. riana_dzasta 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One can transclude, link, or even just type a comment on a userpage without the need for a userbox. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait... do you not like the cat, or the ubx? :) riana_dzasta 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, "like" doesn't have anything to do with it : ) - Second, I was responding to the comment: "...and not everybody likes userboxes." - In other words, just because someone doesn't like userboxes, doesn't mean that they have no way to be able to express themselves besides the (mis-)use of a category. - jc37 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, not everyone likes userboxes, different from other "negative" categories because it implies an affirmative (wishing to only remain an ordinary editor,) etc. Grandmasterka 08:14, 1 December 2006 (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.

November 25 edit

Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Category:Wikipedian Vast Right Wing Conspiracy members. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after reading Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, it seems like a response to a comment by Hillary Clinton. I don't see how it can help with collaboration. (And sounds awfully close to being a "not" category.) - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Conservative Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Extreme soapboxism.--WaltCip 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean rename or delete? (Confused somewhat by your comments.) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename per Mike Selinker's suggestions.--WaltCip 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (per the effect of the suggested rename to an existing target).Given that the only member is an apparently abandonned role account, this is near-speediable.Alai 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Category:Conservative Wikipedians. I have a slight preference to delete (the category seems more like a joke to me), but a merge is fine if there's no consensus to delete. —Cswrye 23:33, 1 December 2006 (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 their own political ideals 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with their own political ideals - "This category is for Wikipedians who follow only their own political ideals (ones invented by themselves or someone they know that are not mainstream) - they do not abide by any certain party's beliefs." - Userbox should be enough. I don't see usefulness as a category. (Essentially a "not" category.) - jc37 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Independent Wikipedians. If your belief is that you are not independent, well, I don't have a category for that. :^)--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Delete per nom. - People may have their own political ideals, but in the end, they're still sheep.--WaltCip 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Independent Wikipedians" gives no indication that the category is about politics, and the userbox should be sufficient for these free-thinkers. :) -- nae'blis 04:35, 26 November 2006 (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 some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence - (Wikipedians who like "The South".) Usefulness as a category? Only member is category creator. - jc37 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, no revenge categories.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an individual with an affinity toward the South, but who doesn't live there nor who has any hint of affection toward Confederate sympathies, I can say that Southern affinity transcends origin, politics, etc. Southern culture is as much about charming accents, biscuits and gravy, and being neighborly as it is about anything else.  Erielhonan  21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fine. But how does this provide a means for collaboration? (And remember, they still retain the userbox/userpage notice stating their belief.) - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of articles about the South to edit.While I would recommend that people who want to ID as collaborators join a WikiProject, not everyone will.Maybe a compromise would be to blast a message to category members to "Join [related WikiProject] if you are interested in collaboration, because this affinity-group category is going to be deleted in [30 or so] days."Rather than suddenly deleting the locale- and region-based affinity groups without any forewarning or option. Erielhonan (talk • contribs) 21:37, May 26, 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no argument with the deletion of this category IF someone can point out an alternate similar category. The "United States Southern Wikipedians" cat was deleted, which I do not argue with, except that the only remaining option was for Wikipedians in the US South. I see that we now have Category:Wikipedians interested in a region and perhaps the cat in question could be moved to "Wikipedians interested in the US South"? Cmadler 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well first, I think Category:Wikipedians interested in a region probably needs a bit of cleanup. But that said, how about: Category:Wikipedians interested in the Southern United States - per Southern United States. - jc37 13:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Solid.--Mike Selinker 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So does that mean that you (Mike Selinker) think I should change my "vote" above? (And for that matter, you and yours as well?) I don't mind the rename, but I am leaning toward delete. But further comment will likely sway me : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry, but the wording of this category seems so specific that it essentially refers to only one user. I recommend deleting, but I'm not opposed to the creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in the Southern United States or a similar category if the user wants to do so, at least until we get the whole "in region/from region/born in region/interested in region" situation resolved. —Cswrye 23:39, 1 December 2006 (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 positive edit wars 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with positive edit wars - the reverse category of the nomination directly below. Sorry to hear it, but the userbox would still be enough. It too is empty and uncategorised. - jc37 11:44, 25 November 2006 (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 negative edit wars 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with negative edit wars - While I'm happy to hear it, the userbox would be enough. The category is also empty and uncategorised. - jc37 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it's empty.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (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 evil clones 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with evil clones - jc37 11:38, 25 November 2006 (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 a varying wikilosophy 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with a varying wikilosophy - From one perspective, the category is too broad, from another, since it's a category that essentially says that its members deal with every situation on a case-by-case basis, it could potentially contain all wikipedians. (Except those who may claim to be biased?) - jc37 11:33, 25 November 2006 (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 a ponytail one foot long or longer 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with a ponytail one foot long or longer - : ) - jc37 11:28, 25 November 2006 (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 a Massachusetts accent 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians with a Massachusetts accent to Wikipedians in Massachusetts - jc37 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge - as nominator. - jc37 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also similar to a clothing category.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I might agree, I think that a rename may help prevent a re-creation. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment USEFUL? On what grounds? If we ever want to voicechat with a Wikipedian we know they have a Massachusetts accent? What does this category permit for other than trivial user information? A category isn't needed for this, merely a comment on the userpage will suffice. It's like having a category: Category:Wikipedians who are Wikipedians--WaltCip 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And on that note, delete.--WaltCip 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, emotional, are we? :)Anyway, let me explain.I admit that the usefulness of this category is extremely marginal, but potentially it still can be useful.If one is to illustrate articles about dialects and accents of American English with sound files, it might be very helpful to know who the native speakers of a certain dialect are.Good luck finding an American speaker with Boston accent without a category...I know it's all a bit far-fetched, but as long as there is a potential for something being useful, I am not going to vote to delete it.Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, wow. I have to admit, you really surprised me : ) - Very nice answer by the way. However, that said (hears music of doom - something beethoven-ish perhaps - in the background), Wikipedians in Massachusetts might be a good place to look for that as well (hence, merge). - jc37 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be, but someone's mere being in Massachusetts does not automatically make one speak in corresponding accent :)Thus, I still stand by my original vote that this category should stay as more specific.Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If no consensus to merge, Delete - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, irrespective of where the contents go.Alai 19:08, 1 December 2006 (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 whose hobby is Wikipedia 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians whose hobby is Wikipedia - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see the usefulness of a category in this case. - jc37 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can't exactly say why, though. This is kind of a declaration of Wikipedia status, which makes me think I'd want to go to these people for... what, thankless tasks? Building a consensus? Planning a meetup? Something. Anyway, I'd keep it for now.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that include everyone though? Hobby doesn't necessarily equal how intensively a person does that hobby. - jc37 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's project related, harmless, and not totally inane. --tjstrf talk 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't that include all of us? -- ProveIt (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That you are a registered user and know about categories automatically makes this redundant. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as next to "redundant", and precisely at "useless".Alai 19:09, 1 December 2006 (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 watch WindTunnel 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 WindTunnel with Dave Despain.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch WindTunnel to Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain - per WindTunnel with Dave Despain and consistency. Though it only contains userbox-related pages and the creator's page. - jc37 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think most people who watch this show (well, me, the one time I did) call it WindTunnel. Rename per the category's creator below.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no real preference, except that it should be whatever the show's actual name is.I was/am just going by the article. - jc37 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as creator of this category, I think it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedias who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain I don't know how many people like this show who work on Wikipedia, but there has to be some out there. Chris 01:20, 26 November 2006 (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 watch Dumb and Dumber 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 Dumb & Dumber.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch Dumb and Dumber to Category:Wikipedians who like Dumb & Dumber - per consistency. - jc37 10:55, 25 November 2006 (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 split infinitives 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use split infinitives - While informative, I think the userbox is enough. - jc37 10:48, 25 November 2006 (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 whose names anagram to 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians whose names anagram to other Wikipedians - Among other things, this would be better as a List... (pairs of words are better listed than categorised). - jc37 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're gonna do that, at least tell us whose name you anagram to.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete catcruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 26 November 2006 (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 caffeine 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use caffeine - Not exactly a food category... - jc37 10:41, 25 November 2006 (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 outfits need cat hair 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 to Category:Wikipedians who love cats.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who think outfits need cat hair to Category:Wikipedians who love cats - jc37 10:37, 25 November 2006 (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 Wikipedia is "Teh Win" 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is "Teh Win" - Well, besides other issues, according to this web site, the definition of "win" is ambiguous. - jc37 10:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment D0n't j00 m3k3 a m0k3r33 of my l8ng003g3.--WaltCip 11:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes - If it was telling jokes, I could see the collaboration purpose... - jc37 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets my definition of a hobby, and there are lots of related articles: Joy Buzzer, Snake Nut Can, etc.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - Due to my nomination comment being applied by Mike Selinker : ) - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (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 own The Black Parade album 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 to Category:Wikipedians who listen to My Chemical Romance.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who own The Black Parade album to Category:Wikipedians who listen to My Chemical Romance - jc37 10:07, 25 November 2006 (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 New York Jets 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 (empty)--Mike Selinker 12:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who like the New York Jets to Category:Wikipedian New York Jets fans - per consistency. - jc37 10:00, 25 November 2006 (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 crank calls 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like crank calls - Can't imagine usefulness. - jc37 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Again, it's a hobby, though I can't imagine how one could write much about it.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't either... - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been at least one TV series and one series of comedy albums dedicated to the topic, see Crank Yankers and the Jerky Boys.Lots of radio announcers on 'hip' stations will use prank calls in their broadcasts.It's practically a comedy genre.  Erielhonan  21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think we could call it a "genre" of comedy.Though it's been used recently as a "type" of comedic performance. But if we start categorising by types of comedic performance, how about performing in blackface? impressionists? ventriloquists? magicians? The latter four (due to their long history), at least have been around long enough to be considered. And "phone calls" have been done in comedy for years. (I think George Jessel had a call to his mother as a part of his act.) Is this really a trend we should start? How about drama types? (and let's not get into dramadies : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although it is a real "hobby", I don't think it will do much in terms of collaboration. There are also too few article that could make use of the category (things like Crank Yankers and the Jerky Boys could have their own categories like many other interests). —Cswrye 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete."Liking" something isn't a hobby descriptor, and nor would a more "active" interest be a remotely useful category.(Can't we make singleton user cats speediable?)Alai 19:15, 1 December 2006 (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 Three Stooges 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:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like The Three Stooges to Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans - per consistency. - jc37 09:47, 25 November 2006 (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 hope to own dogs edit

Category:Wikipedians who hope to own cats 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 both.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who hope to own dogs
Category:Wikipedians who hope to own cats
Similar to the "hope to be pilots" category below. I don't see how this category would be useful for collaboration. - jc37 09:27, 25 November 2006 (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 the New York Yankees 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who hate the New York Yankees - Another "not" category. - jc37 09:15, 25 November 2006 (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 enjoy Eurobeat 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 listen to Eurobeat music.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Eurobeat to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Eurobeat music - per consistency. - jc37 09:13, 25 November 2006 (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 enjoy alt-history 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: delaying till article rename is tested as "Alternate history fiction," if that is accepted then will rename to category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction..--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history to Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history (fiction) - per consistency and Alternate history (fiction). - jc37 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename though I think you can ditch the parenthetical.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently it's needed for disambiguation according to alternative history. - jc37 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay. But at least ditch the parentheses. Let's not be too enamored of page titles.--Mike Selinker 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Don't Rename - as creator of the category.Alt-history is how the genre is referred to conversationally, and user categories are more for community-building than for any sort of officialdom (my understanding).Granted it's an abbreviation and sort of jargony, but it makes it identifiable to users.If rename happens, I support Mike Selinker's proposal to elide the parentheses (thereby making the category title Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction), for the reason stated in MS's comments as well as because the category name would then match the text in the category description and in the linked userbox. Also, if rename happens, please create a temp redirect till I get a chance to modify the linked userbox (within no more than 48 hrs), and please post a msg on my talk page letting me know that it was indeed renamed.Thanks,  Erielhonan  17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (about: Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction) - I would prefer that we follow the article name, whenever we can. (And (fiction) would seem to be the correct disambiguation.) - jc37
    The disambiguation is only semi-necessary in the first place.The terms are different, though similar (alternative history = research paradigm, alternate history = literary genre).Also, the w/o parentheses version of the title redirects to the parenthesize-entitled article.The parentheses imply a relationship that doesn't directly exist with the research topic (though the research certainly can inform the fiction).Alt-history is a subgenre of speculative fiction, and more closely akin to sci-fi than it is to any academic research. IMHO, alt-history is sufficient, but I stand by my previous comment regarding action.  Erielhonan  21:30, 25 November 2006 (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 enjoy electronic music 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 to Category:Wikipedians who listen to electronic music.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who enjoy electronic music to Category:Wikipedians who listen to electronic music - jc37 08:56, 25 November 2006 (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 enjoy sci-fi 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 read sci-fi.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy sci-fi to Category:Wikipedians who read sci-fi - per consistency. - jc37 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Rename - sci-fi is how the genre is commonly referred to, and user categories of this ilk are for community-building so should reflect the common usage of the community in question.  Erielhonan  18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Maybe change "enjoy" to "like" and leave it at that.--Mike Selinker 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (confused) - The nomination doesn't suggest changing "sci-fi"... - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'kay, I was speeding through this and assumed a similar change to that proposed for 'alt-history'.I agree with the NPOV rename and Withdraw my previous recommendation.  Erielhonan  21:33, 25 November 2006 (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 who enjoy smooth jazz music 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 listen to smooth jazz music.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy smooth jazz music to Category:Wikipedians who listen to smooth jazz music - per consistency. - jc37 08:43, 25 November 2006 (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 under influence 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians under influence to Category:Wikipedians who edit under the influence - Since it includes alcohol as well as various drugs, I think it's too broad to be useful. It's also of questionable usefulness. - jc37 08:31, 25 November 2006 (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 have been arrested before 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 have been arrested.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians that have been arrested before to Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested - jc37 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [changed from Rename per MS, below - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete, maybe. What's this useful for?--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - it's a community-builder, believe it or not. As in, "look, we've been arrested and we are still a productive member of society," maybe. Also a collaboration point as an interest group. Though I'm sure a significant portion of Wikipedians have been arrested and still wouldn't join the category, for obvious reasons. But the superfluous terminal preposition/adverb has to go.  Erielhonan  20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. This does not assist in collaboration, and as you said, Wikipedians would not willingly join the category. Plus, it does not provide any fair usefulness as a category. Rather, it looks more like a criminal record book. Delete per nom.--WaltCip 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bold assertion of certainty.You can't dispute that collaboration can come from this category.Who would know the various laws around DUI or disorderly conduct or common features of local jails than people who have been involved in the system?It's has the potential to be an insider category, and a source of collaboration on jurisprudence and criminal justice.User:Erielhonan 21:37, 26 May 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Rename.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Erielhonan, who really should change his/her sig (I had to preview to figure out who it was who has said it.) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:58, 29 November 2006 (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 edit the Uruguayan Portal 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: } relisting with other portal categories}}
Rename Category:Wikipedians that edit the Uruguayan Portal to Category:Wikipedians who use the Uruguayan portal - jc37 08:24, 25 November 2006 (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 believe West Virginia is in the South 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South to Category:Wikipedians in West Virginia - per consistency. - jc37 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.Delete. Compelling argument below about lack of overlap.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone - not an identical group (people who live in other states can hold this point of view), and a cultural debate that has regional validity. As a former resident of Pittsburgh, PA, which shares a lot of linguistic and cultural similarities with West Virginia, I fall in the opposing camp.  Erielhonan  20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fine. But how does this provide a means for collaboration? (And remember, they still retain the userbox/userpage notice stating their belief.) - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any affinity group is a potential source of collaboration.I don't think shutting down legitimate networking is a good idea.See my comments about locale/state/region affinity below. User:Erielhonan 3:13 PM PST 11/25/06.
  • Delete - Belief that West Virginia is in the South does not mean one is in West Virginia. I could live in Mongolia and believe that West Virginia is in the South. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 22:43, 1 December 2006 (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 are Maple-Leafs 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 merge to extant category.--Mike Selinker 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians that are Maple-Leafs fans to Category:Wikipedian Toronto Maple Leafs fans - per consistency. - jc37 08:05, 25 November 2006 (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 seeking adoption in Adopt-a-user 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 (empty).--Mike Selinker 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians seeking adoption in Adopt-a-user - Completing an apparent attempt by User:Flameviper. It's empty, and apparently has been replaced by other categories for the program. - jc37 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it's empty.--Mike Selinker 10:03, 25 November 2006 (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 of another species edit

Category:Furry 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 "another species", keep "Furry".--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of another species
Category:Furry Wikipedians
My first inclination is to Delete, however, such Wikipedians would likely know about Anime & manga; Animal-based RPGs; and Computer and video games. In any case, the first category needs a better name. Also, It is populated by 3 divergent though similar userboxes (See: Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Wikipedians of another species).If kept, it should be split, renamed, and used as a parent category for all 4. Any ideas for the new name(s)? - jc37 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Furry Wikipedians at least, as it is a defined subgroup - those Wikipedians who are members of the furry fandom, and who are likely to edit articles in Category:Furry. Not so sure about the other one - I agree that it is a little vague. Note that being a member of the furry fandom does not imply that you believe yourself to be a member of another species, so the Furry Wikipedians category should probably not be a subcategory of Wikipedians of another species. GreenReaper 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "another species," but Keep "Furry." Furry is a recognized collaborative community with its own wiki based on our own.--Mike Selinker 10:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other species, as it seems to be a joke. Rename furry category to "Wikipedians interested in furry fandom". --Gray Porpoise 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GENERAL Comment on many of these proposals - please keep in mind that affinity != interest != identity.I am interested in the furry thing as a cultural topic, but do not share the affinity or identity.I have an affinity toward the Southern U.S., but do not share the identity.I may speak with a Massachusetts accent (I actually don't, but if I did...), I don't necessarily live in Massachusetts or have much interest in why it sounds like it does. Just saying, you can't reasonably merge categories like this.  Erielhonan  21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other species cat, rename furry cat to "Wikipedians interested in furry topics". "Wikipedians interested in furry fandom wouldn't be as good; it sounds too much like they're interested in the fandom as a hobby. "Wikipedians interested in furry topics" would include people such as myself that are interested in articles pertaining to the fandom but aren't at all interested in the fandom personally. Voretustalk 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "another species"; keep "furry". Then again, we have equally ridiculous categories such as Category:Martian Wikipedians, so maybe I should change that to weak delete "another species". (Full disclosure: I use userboxes that put me in both categories (i.e., "furry" and "other species"), but I only use the "other species" for the userbox; I could care less about the fate of that category.) ---Bersl2 11:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "other species", per the varied reasons above (including my own : ) - We should probably rename "furry" at some point, but, there doesn't seem to be consensus on a name yet. (I was laughing to myself about: Category:Wikipedians interested in all things furry : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Furry Wikipedians, but delete Category:Wikipedians of another species as per Mike. Blast 11.30.06 1558 (UTC -5)  
  • Rename and Move WereWolf 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "other species" as empty-but-doesn't-realize-it-yet;weak keep of "furries".Alai 19:24, 1 December 2006 (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 Tang-e Bolaghi 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Tang-e Bolaghi to Category:Wikipedians interested in saving Tang-e Bolaghi - populated by Template:User Tang-e Bolaghi, and only one member (the category/userbox creator). I think the userbox should be enough in this case. - jc37 07:08, 25 November 2006 (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:Users who wish new computers came with floppy drives 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 to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Users who wish new computers came with floppy drives to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers - jc37 06:33, 25 November 2006 (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 are trying to be not currently active 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).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are trying to be not currently active to Wikipedians taking a Wikibreak - Category populated by Template:Attempting wikibreak. (Name taken from text in template.) - jc37 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If what you're proposing is to merge Template:Attempting wikibreak into Template:Wikibreak, I'd prefer a rename to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active as that is the category that Template:Wikibreak uses. If you're just looking for a semantic change, try Category: Wikipedians attempting a wikibreak --RoninBKETC 07:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not attempting to merge any templates. However, if this nomination goes through, the intention is to have similar templates to populate the same category. Unification should equal ease of navigation. - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe. You're either online or off, sez I.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hesitant to delete, due to the other active/inactive categories, but you're probably right. - Delete, if there's no consensus to support a particular rename. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename - the proposed renaming uses self-referential jargon, making it less accessible to casual users and nonusers.On this level it trends toward local jargon, where the other proposals I've commented on in opposition trend away from global jargon.If a rename happens, it should at the very least clarify and not obfuscate.  Erielhonan  18:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Mike here. You're either on break or not. People trying to take a break doesn't have much use as a category. As a reply to the above comment, user categories are self-referential by definition, so WP:SELF doesn't apply. —Cswrye 18:42, 30 November 2006 (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:Participants in WikiProject National Football League edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[moved to speedy - jc37 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Rename Category:Participants in WikiProject National Football League to Category:WikiProject National Football League participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who are currently online edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are currently online to Category:Wikipedians who are currently online (Users to Wikipedians) - jc37 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's pretty redundant, and won't always be true. --Majorly (Talk) 19:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing, the category doesn't exist. -Amarkov blahedits 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as second name above) - Cool. All those in/out systems can now be categorized.Nice little feature.Especially for finding admins.There should be a subcat just for them.Is there?  The Transhumanist   22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What happened here? It looks like the nominated category has already been renamed (which I support anyway). —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in speedy, so I gave it two days and renamed it.--Mike Selinker 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees Fans edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees Fans to Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees fans (f) - jc37 09:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that are VandalProof moderators edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that are VandalProof moderators to Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators (s that are) - jc37 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa to Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa (that to who) - jc37 08:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a speedy process. I won't try to pressure a delete here, since it will just end up as no consensus and get us nowhere.--WaltCip 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Just do it.It's a grammar fix.  The Transhumanist   22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category doesn't aid in collaboration. However, if the category isn't deleted (as it appears that it won't be), rename per nom. —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who play Perplex City edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Users who play Perplex City to Category:Wikipedians who play Perplex City (Users to Wikipedians) - jc37 06:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 24 edit

Category:Wikipedians who love Sealab 2021 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 Sealab 2021.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who love Sealab 2021 to Category:Category:Wikipedians who like Sealab 2021. That's a TV show, so it needs "like."--Mike Selinker 03:16, 25 November 2006 (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 is a fan of John Cena 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 to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who is a fan of John Cena to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - another one. - jc37 13:04, 24 November 2006 (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 eats protien diet 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians who eats protien diet to Category:Wikipedians on a protein diet - empty, except for the associated userbox. - jc37 12:59, 24 November 2006 (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 eat at Quiznos Sub 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 (empty).--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who eat at Quiznos Sub - empty, among other things. - jc37 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (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 drinks Coca-Cola 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.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who drinks Coca-Cola - "food" category, and possibly a recreation. - jc37 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as recreation. Its title isn't even in proper grammar! --Gray Porpoise 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (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 are members of the SOS Brigade - Wikipedia Branch 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 The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are members of the SOS Brigade - Wikipedia Branch to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - per consistency. - jc37 12:43, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of the Red Sox 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 per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Red Sox to Category:Wikipedian Boston Red Sox fans - per consistency. - jc37 12:37, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of the movie Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”) 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 Doppelgänger (1969 film).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the movie Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”) to Category:Wikipedians who like Doppelgänger (1969 film) - Should be obvious : ) - jc37 12:33, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of The Transformers 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 the Transformers.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Transformers to Category:Wikipedians who like Transformers or Category:Wikipedians who like the Transformers - Similar to the Power Rangers comment below. - jc37 12:29, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of Jean-Luc Godard 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 Jean-Luc Godard films.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jean-Luc Godard to Category:Wikipedians who like Jean-Luc Godard films - per consistency. - jc37 12:25, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of The Game Triple H 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 to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Game Triple H to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - Another one. - jc37 12:22, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of Cryme Time 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 to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Cryme Time to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - See similar nomination below. - jc37 12:18, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of CNBC 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 CNBC.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of CNBC to Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC - jc37 12:14, 24 November 2006 (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 are fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey edit

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Colossus: The Forbin Project edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename both.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (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 are a fan of the Power Rangers 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 per creator's request.--Mike Selinker 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers to Category:Wikipedians who like Power Rangers or Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers - Since it's not just about a single show, but rather any show that features the Power Rangers as characters, I thought I would offer both options. - jc37 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers - as nominator. - jc37 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "the Power Rangers" version.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "the Power Rangers" version, truthfully I thought the issues that would come up with this cat was with the Userboxes I made for it. If this is the only problem then by all means be my guest.Phoenix741 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are excellent userboxes, Phoenix. Just a wording issue with the category name, is all.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then by all means change it, heck i will change it if someone shows me how.Phoenix741 15:30, 25 November 2006 (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 are Caians 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 by alma mater: Gonville and Caius, University of Cambridge.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are Caians to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gonville and Caius, University of Cambridge - jc37 11:24, 24 November 2006 (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've eaten silica gel 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who've eaten silica gel - Dunno if I'd call it a "food" category...: ) - jc37 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They're still with us? Must not have been a lot of silica gel.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (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 have been powered up by Maxy the Cloud 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians that have been powered up by Maxy the Cloud - It's cute, but it's merely a category of those who use User:Masky's userbox. - jc37 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Uh, yeah, I mean delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think mike means delete also, but hey I don't know.Phoenix741 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume so too, But I guess we'll have to wait and see : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete catcruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 26 November 2006 (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 don't believe in Santa 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa - Another "not" category. - jc37 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (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 somewhere unspecified in the 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: merge to Category:Wikipedians in the United States.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States to Category:Wikipedians in the United States. - jc37 11:05, 24 November 2006 (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 somewhere undetermined in Canada 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 to Category:Wikipedians in Canada.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada to Category:Wikipedians in Canada. - jc37 11:00, 24 November 2006 (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:Fans of Chobits 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 to Category:Wikipedians who like Chobits.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Fans of Chobits to Category:Wikipedians who like Chobits per consistency in Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, and per Chobits. - jc37 10:58, 24 November 2006 (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 of Totoro 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 to Category:Wikipedians who like My Neighbor Totoro.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians of Totoro to Category:Wikipedians who like My Neighbor Totoro per consistency in Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, and per My Neighbor Totoro. - jc37 10:54, 24 November 2006 (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 descend from 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: merge to Category:Wikipedian descendants of Confederate soldiers.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who descend from Confederate soldiers - This is similar to the nomination directly below, except the descent isn't by regional nationality. - jc37 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by ancertry --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See response below. - jc37 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Wikipedians descended from Confederate soldiers. This doesn't seem too connected to the other categories, and can be judged separately, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and the rename sounds fine with me. Though as an alternative, how about: "Wikipedian descendants of Confederate soldiers" ?(Either one is fine with me, at this point.) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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 (X) Ancestry 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 all to "of (X) ancestry".--Mike Selinker 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to whatever consensus decides the standard should be. - jc37 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by ancertry --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm also asking is what the "standard" for renaming each of this so that they are consistant in naming convention with each other. - jc37 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "with (X) ancestry" versions. It's different than the "born in" versions, as someone can have never been to Greece and still have Greek ancestry.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Wikipedians of (X) ancestry" (not Ancestry) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note: These were the only example of ancestry categories. Is this a trend we want to start? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Mike Selinker. These seem to have some use for collaboration. -- nae'blis 04:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this one's time is almost up, there's little point to start a new idea, but after doing some checking, I think these should be merged (with appropriate names) into Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity (which is nominated for a rename, itself). However until then... - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - I think I personally prefer "of" in this case. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Wikipedians of (X) ancestry". -- AuburnPilottalk 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
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 waiting for Godot edit

Category:Wikipedians no longer waiting for Godot 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 both to Category:Wikipedians who read Samuel Beckett.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who read Samuel Beckett. - The author of the the book in question. - jc37 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both - as nominator. - jc37 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, no no. Did you ever SEE the play? Did you fail modern lit? The point is not the play (not book); the point is what the waiting signifies. This does not convey the information that the editor is a Beckett fan. It conveys whether they are feeling progess is being made in any substantial way or not. Keep, delete, or rename, but do not merge these into Category:Wikipedians who read Samuel Beckett, because that would be nonsense. it would be like merging Category:Scuba divers -> Category:People who watched the movie Jaws - there is a tenuous connection, but that is all - and the crossover is an overlap, not a direct relation. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My own background in English Lit aside, only those who have any clue about the book/play by Beckett, will have a clue what you're talking about. Note that this has nothing to do with the associated userbox or userpage notice, just with the category of inclusion. - jc37 01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, sorry Killer, but this really is just kinda silly. Whatever the hell the waiting signifies is not really useful here. —ptk✰fgs 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the categories, don't much care where the current contents go.Alai 19:27, 1 December 2006 (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 dozenal 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 duodecimal.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like dozenal to Category:Wikipedians who like duodecimal - per the name of the associated article duodecimal. (The category even links to it.) - jc37 09:38, 24 November 2006 (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 confused by politics 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians confused by politics - At times, aren't we all? : ) - jc37 09:33, 24 November 2006 (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 riders 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:Wikipedian equestrians.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedian riders to Wikipedian horseback riders or Wikipedian equstrians - per Horseback riding (the former name of the article), and Equestrian (the current name of the article). I have no preference which, but since one fully changes the name, while the other merely dabs it, I thought I would offer both choices. - jc37 09:11, 24 November 2006 (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 llama racers 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian llama racers - Doesn't even seem to have an associated article. - jc37 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. would be funny to see a llama race though. --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the pen spinners, there's no reason to think this isn't a legit hobby.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We only categorise by hobby if this leads to collaboration possibilities. There isn't even an article for this. There's even a possibility that it's something made up in school one day. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No collaborative purpose since there's no article for it, and like jc37 said, it may be something just made up. —Cswrye 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Makey-uppy.Alai 19:28, 1 December 2006 (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 hoping to be pilots 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Category:Wikipedians hoping to be pilots to Category:Wikipedian student pilots - However, considering the associated userbox, I don't think the merge is appropriate. - jc37 08:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They haven't necessarily set foot in a plane yet. This seems harmless to me.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Harmless, but not useful? They still keep the usebox : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly all categories are harmless. But half of those categories are also useless. Write an essay: I think WP:HARMLESS would be a good policy for us CfD policemen to fall back on.--WaltCip 04:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let the users redeploy to wherever they wish.Alai 19:29, 1 December 2006 (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 barefooters 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian barefooters - Me too (wriggles my toes), but even if I type with my feet, I don't see how this is useful : ) - jc37 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the pen spinners, there's no reason to think this isn't a legit hobby.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Selinker — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess I have to ask what's starting to feel like a cliche'd question... Even if we consider this a hobby, how does it help for collaboration? (And technically (presuming we have feet), we're all barefooters at some point or other...) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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 Waterbenders edit

Category:Wikipedian Firebenders edit

Category:Wikipedian Earthbenders edit

Category:Wikipedian Airbenders 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 all to Category:Wikipedians who like Avatar: The Last Airbender.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Wikipedian Avatar: The Last Airbender fans. (Unless we have cartoon characters among us : ) - jc37 08:32, 24 November 2006 (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's who's favorite tag team in professional wrestling is DX currently working for WWE RAW brand 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 to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedian's who's favorite tag team in professional wrestling is DX currently working for WWE RAW brand to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE. Should be self-explanatory : ) - jc37 08:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 08:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Way too specific.--Mike Selinker 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - just confuses me reading the explanation of the category on that page --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This may very well be more weighty than Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD--WaltCip 04:06, 25 November 2006 (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 Knights of the Order of the Tin Foil Sword of Great Justice 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in the Knights of the Order of the Tin Foil Sword of Great Justice - Before commenting, take a look at the template which populates this category: Template:Foilsword. The humour is unmistakable, but its civility could possibly be considered questionable. In any case, I don't believe the category is should be kept. - jc37 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An organization like any other.--Mike Selinker 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you further clarify? - jc37 09:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I was going to, then I looked at it closer and I decided it's just the same as categorizing all the recipients of a barnstar. So delete.--Mike Selinker 16:46, 24 November 2006 (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 Esperanto organizations 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 withdrawn, speedy keep. --ais523 09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations to Category:Wikipedians in Esperanza - single member, and would seem to be a duplication. - jc37 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Esperanza and Esperanto have nothing to do with each other.--Mike Selinker 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - sleepy eyes apparently missed that in pasting. Good catch : )
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:Friendly 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: already closed as deleted from Nov 11 nomination.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Friendly Wikipedians - Another of the "nice" categories : ) - jc37 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator, and per previous discussions. - jc37 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we'd already seen it, but I couldn't find a tag in the page history. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhappy delete - Pity it has to go, but I understand that it must. I also thought I saw this being discussed for deletion before - wonder where it's gone? Nihiltres 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth - per nom.--WaltCip 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AnnH ♫ 22:02, 1 December 2006 (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 celebrate Mother's Day 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who celebrate Mother's Day - Same reasons as St. George's Day, below. - jc37 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as below.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bit silly. AnnH ♫ 22:02, 1 December 2006 (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 celebrate St. George's Day 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who celebrate St. George's Day - There are only two of these "celebrates a holidy" categories (The other is mother's day). Imagine: Wikipedians by holiday celebrations. Consider all the religious and secular holidays, and think about whether we want something like that. - jc37 06:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument convinced me. Delete.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AnnH ♫ 22:03, 1 December 2006 (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 smoke pipe edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipe to Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes (s) - jc37 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust trust Jimbo edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust trust Jimbo to Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo (extra trust : ) - jc37 13:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffarge in Hong Kong edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffarge in Hong Kong to Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong (obvious typo) - jc37 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge--Yes, I created that category, thank you for spotting that lousy typo.Please go ahead with the merge :) --OH-J 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Local History edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians for Local History to Category:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history (caps and adding "WikiProject" clarifier) - jc37 09:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: university of newcastle, australia edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: university of newcastle, australia to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Newcastle, Australia (Caps) - jc37 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with IQ above 150 edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians with an IQ above 150, or Delete. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you could have speedied (a, an, the) that one : ) - jc37 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Though maybe "IQs" is better than "an IQ".--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure it's a recreation, but it was called something else and there's no easy way to find the discussion... ProveIt (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's empty we can speedily delete it.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per comments above. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 23 edit

Category:Crazy 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crazy Wikipedians - Poor duplication of Category:Wikipedians by mental condition - jc37 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator and per Mike Selinker below : ) - jc37 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not specific enough to be useful, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a humor category, but otherwise, it's essentially the same as Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category is a waste of space.--WaltCip 20:30, 24 November 2006 (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 symbols edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika 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 both (consensus on Swastika, creator decision on symbols).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or UpMerge Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika to Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols. If Delete, then Delete Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols, as well. (Both are tagged.) Only a single member (who created the userbox which populates the category). - jc37 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nominator. - jc37 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one's all me. I couldn't abide "Wikipedians interested in Swastika" sitting on the category:Wikipedians by interest page, so I created an ubercategory for it (which no one else created a subcategory of). I can't say it fails the "useful to find an expert" test, though.--Mike Selinker 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols and upmerge Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika into it. I can see how it could be helpful to find people who are knowledgeable about symbols in general, but categories for specific symbols is overcategorization. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be the one thing I oppose, since the user in question isn't interested in symbols, he's interested in the Swastika.--Mike Selinker 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only one member, and his userbox should be enough to find him (what links here). How about "delete for now", and if we get more people interested in symbols, recreation later could be possible? - jc37 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you make good arguments. Delete both for now, but I'm not against recreating Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols if there are ever any Wikipedians who actually are interested in symbols. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Yonks ago, we had a CfD for "Fascist Wikipedians". We really don't need another call to get up on the soapbox. And the symbols thing is a bit of a yawner.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge and keep the intersted in symbols category.A very useful collaboration category; symbols and symbology is a vast and encyclopedic topic.  Erielhonan  22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fine category, Erielhonen, but no one has decided to be in it yet. So if the Swastika category goes, this should go too, because it will be empty.--Mike Selinker 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • what's the rationale for deleting fine categories just because they are empty?An argument in favor of leaving them is: a new user without the chops to or interest in learning to create a new category would be able to self-select an empty category, but wouldn't be able to self-select a deleted category.If the category has merit, let's not assume that 'empty now' = 'useless'.  Erielhonan  00:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Erielhonan, around 5PM PST, Saturday after Thanxgiving (US).[reply]
        • Empty now = reason to delete. It's one of our main criteria for speedy deletion.--Mike Selinker 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So 3 delete both, 1 merge, and MS's opinion isn't quite clear? (If one goes, the other goes, is about all I got from it so far : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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 Atheism 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 to Category:Atheist Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in Atheism to Category:Atheist Wikipedians. per consistency. - jc37 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I know that they can technically have different meanings, but for the purposes of this project, I don't think that we need that level of distinction. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are userboxes for religious Wikipedians and Wikipedians interested in religion as a hobby; this is no different, although more specific than the example given. Blast 11.24.06 0153 (UTC -5)
    Actually, no there aren't. There's one for interests in religions in general, and then a myriad of belief subcats. There are two exceptions, this one, and Category:Wikipedians interested in Sikhism, which I've hesitated to nominate. (I'm considering a merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in religions, but I haven't decided yet). And if we start introducing interest in specific religion categories, they will duplicate all the belief subcats, plus include everyone interested, resulting in large, unwieldy categories, whose usefulness is questionable at best. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in religions. If I were interested in atheism (I'm not, mind you), would that automatically make me an atheist? --Gray Porpoise 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - under the principle that interest != identity.I for one am interested in atheism (as I am interested in all human perspectives on theology), but am not an atheist.  Erielhonan  22:10, 25 November 2006 (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:Hellbound 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hellbound Wikipedians - Possibly, but that doesn't mean that they need to be categorised by it. : ) - jc37 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can't know this is true.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a joke category and no purpose as a category. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Am I going to hell for supporting this CfD?--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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 pen spinners 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian pen spinners - I have to admit, this one made me smile. - jc37 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a legitimate hobby with its own article. Meets the "useful to find an expert" test.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if it was a subcat of jugglers and plate spinners, which I highly doubt is what the category membership consist of... - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we only categorise by hobby if this leads to collaboration possibilities. There's even a possibility that it's something made up in school one day. (The reference section of the related article even has a cleanup tag : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It's a legitimate hobby, but I'm generally reluctant to keep user categories that essentially only apply to one article. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no World Pen Spinner Championship, at least not yet.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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 drive rusty pieces of junk 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who drive rusty pieces of junk - Again, Just read its name and introduction. : ) - jc37 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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 crashed a hot car 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who crashed a hot car - Just read its name and introduction. : ) - jc37 13:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't see how this could be useful. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by transportation 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians by transportation to Category:Wikipedians by interest or Category:Wikipedians by skill, as appropriate. The subcats are already members of one or the other. - jc37 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [modified to add the second category per MS's comment below. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom, as nominator. - jc37 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one's complicated. The "Wikipedians interested in" format should be the only one in "Wikipedians by interest." So we'd have to do something with the three subcategories that don't fit that. But they're all in category:Wikipedians by skill, so I just favor deleting this ubercategory.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Selinker. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (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:Users of MOTD edit

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

The result of the debate was delete (accelerated due to Nov 13 nomination passing). --Mike Selinker 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users of MOTD - Per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12#MOTD categories. Relisting since it's a recreation of Category:MOTDuser. However, I've also discussed this with the category creator (User talk:Geo.plrd#MOTD). - jc37 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nominator. - jc37 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This one would have passed in my last nomination had we not pulled it at the last minute.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity 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 by ethnicity and nationality.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality per its page and talk page. - jc37 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as nominator. - jc37 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Seems a very good idea to avoid the duplication of categories for each place where ethnicity and nationality are identical.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the talk page discussion. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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 have never been arrested 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians that have never been arrested - Another "not" category. - jc37 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - NOT category standard.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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:Dumb 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dumb Wikipedians - At first I was hoping this would be about Wikipedians who couldn't speak. Nope, it's populated by: User:UBX/ignorant (WP:CIVIL). But it gets better, the userbox says it's for Wikipedians who don't know how to use Userboxes. Which also makes it a "not" category. - jc37 11:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's an outwardly self-cancelling category.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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:Homesick 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Homesick Wikipedians - Wikipedia, our home away from home... but knowing this is useful, why? - jc37 11:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (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:Sane 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sane Wikipedians WP:AGF, etc. - jc37 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You don't want to take out category:Crazy Wikipedians as well?--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did. : ) - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They're coming to take me away, ha ha, they're coming to take me away, hee hee.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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:Deceased 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: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deceased Wikipedians - See Category talk:Deceased Wikipedians. - jc37 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it has some potential for abuse, I'd be sad to have it deleted. Duja► 11:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, potentially highly useful, and likely to grow.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I see the point, I think a List would be MUCH better for what you're suggesting. (Insert the typical statement about citations/references here.) - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Of what good will this category do?--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a list won't tell you this fact when you visit the user's page. -- nae'blis 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination concerns the category, not about a userbox/userpage notice. - jc37 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The userpage notice is an intrinsic and most useful feature of categories, particularly in this case.  Erielhonan  22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reason Mike Selinker states above.Though one should never, ever place the category on their own page, nor on any userpage unless they do have verifiable proof that it true.  Erielhonan  22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Selinker and Erielhonan. Memmke 10:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering if any was aware of this list, which I presume is better than just the category? - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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:Pissed-off 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pissed-off Wikipedians - Useful? - jc37 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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 do not know their astrological sign 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who do not know their astrological sign - This would appear to be a "not" category. - jc37 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only one of the astrology categories I'll support deleting.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is similar to the "Wikipedians to don't like X" categories. We don't need to categorize people by what they don't know. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This could very well be the most insipidly useless category out there.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's a "not" category, and one can always find out what their astrological sign is by reading the article. --Gray Porpoise 18:37, 25 November 2006 (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 lie about their age 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who lie about their age - And this is useful because? : ) - jc37 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically a "not" category.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (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:Wikipedia administrators suffering from Adminitis 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia administrators suffering from Adminitis - Users are added to this by a rather large page header: {{Adminitis}} - I don't think the category is necessary. - jc37 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the page header is funny, but the category is unnecessary. Duja► 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a good thing to put in the category with real impairments.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (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 wear class rings 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who wear class rings - We already have Category:Wikipedians by education and its various subcats. - jc37 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clothing categories.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (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 vigils 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian vigils - Ignoring usefulness, 3 out of 4 have apparently returned : ) - jc37 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I guess they work. :^) --Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Deceased Wikipedians  Erielhonan  22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's gotta be humor : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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 of Earth 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of Earth - Another location of us all : ) - jc37 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to avoid being in this one.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a sci-fi fan, I take issue with the lack of long-term thinking this comment implies. :-)Just kidding, I really don't care about this one. Erielhonan  22:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can recreate in the future if we start to populate other planets or the moon. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All-inclusive category that does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I myself am a Wikipedian of Mars. Delete - per nom. You didn't see anything.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, nothing to see here, moving along : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we colonise other planets or make alien contact. --Gray Porpoise 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think that he means like these are people who live on earth, but people who see them selves as an earthling more than a citizen of a certian country(they would be the first to agree to a whole World Government, like in Star Trek), kinda like a view point sorta thing. I myself just really like the user box for the Stargate symbol.8-/ -->Phoenix741 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK i just found Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship so now i say Merge-->Phoenix741 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by subculture 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 to Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians by subculture to Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. Look at the two categories to see why. - jc37 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, makes sense and "subculture" is a rather vague term. Not sure I like lifestyle either, but it's more inclusive. Also, wow at Category:Knighted Wikipedians. Do you think that's a joke or is he really a knight? --tjstrf talk 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Duja► 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subculture is an easy idea to parse.It doesn't directly imply lifestyle (immigrants tend to be members of an immigrant subculture, but that doesn't mean they share lifestyle habits aside from speech and other things that go with shared origin).Lifestyle is a politically loaded term, too.Is gay a lifestyle?I'm gay, and I don't share a lot of the the lifestyle practices of many people from my subculture, though I do share a common identity and I socialize within the subculture.In another direction, is hip-hop a lifestyle, or a fashion?You open a political can of worms by implying a connection between the two ubercategories.  Erielhonan  22:30, 25 November 2006 (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 regret their mistakes 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who regret their mistakes - I'm sure we all do, but do we need a category for it? : ) - jc37 10:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since creator accepts making mistakes in the first place, that would certainly be one! NikoSilver 13:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like I said, I'm against driving out all these categories, but if we're killing some, we should kill them all.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think these boxes should be kept because some users will explode if you try to tell them they made a mistake but if you have this box on your userpage then if you make a mistake the person telling them will be glad they won't be yelled at.Natasha rocks 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This nomination won't remove the userbox, only the category. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone should regret their mistakes. A category is not necessary. See the previous "Friendly Wikipedian" discussions.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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:Sarcastic 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sarcastic Wikipedians - (Not even gonna make the obvious puns... Oh what the heck) What? Like we needed a category to let others know? What were you thinkin'? : )- jc37 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most are.--Mike Selinker 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't sarcasm illegal now anyway? --tjstrf talk 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very existence of the category spoils its purpose. Duja► 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooooh, this cat is soooo useful. (Radiant) 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to simply 'Wikipedians'! :-) NikoSilver 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPER DUPER ULTRA STRONG AND SPEEDY KEEP!!! Delete per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" - "everybody" is in that category. It's "so useful". We "need" it to show that we're sarcastic. (Delete.) --Gray Porpoise 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm signing all of you up for the category before it's deleted :-D  Erielhonan  22:33, 25 November 2006 (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:Parent Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted--Mike Selinker 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parent Wikipedians - Empty category, which was populated by a userbox that's since been deleted. - jc37 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since it's empty.--Mike Selinker 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since it's empty. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who procrastinate 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who procrastinate - While possibly useful as a userbox, no need for the category. - jc37 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vote on this one later.In all seriousness though, Delete. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Procrastination is human nature.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... later. --Gray Porpoise 18:45, 25 November 2006 (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:Garlic-eating 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Garlic-eating Wikipedians - Another food category. (Someone like to find the link to the others?) - jc37 08:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator, and per previous discussion. - jc37 08:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous food discussions.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category unless vampires start to take over the Earth. Can recreate if that happens. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one smells.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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:Evil 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Evil Wikipedians - Another cute, but no, category. - jc37 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like it's fine to me. You can be evil, and it can matter.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you joking? - jc37 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Of course, I'm going to support all the D&D Alignment categories too, when you nominate those.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a D&D cat, check it out. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that kind of evil. Okay, delete.--Mike Selinker 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's practically useless.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (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:Happy Birthday! edit

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn.---Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happy Birthday! - Like the other "nice" categories, this is "nice", but not needed as a category. - jc37 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not this one. It actually serves a useful purpose in the scripting of the birthday code. And users who want to know whose birthday it is can user the category to find out. I'd very much like to keep this one.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike. NikoSilver 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (for now). Several thoughts on this one myself (both sides of the fence). Feel free to close. - jc37 14:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian images edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedian images to Category:Wikipedians with pictures. At the very least the category should be moved to Category:Wikipedians by user page. - jc37 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, as consensus desires.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was surprised that there were not more images in the category. I wonder if it's "lost", and no one knows to add images to it. Think there might be a duplicate somewhere? - jc37 09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Wikipedian images is intended to categorize images, while Category:Wikipedians with pictures is intended to categorize users, so there is a distinction between them. There's probably no harm in combining the two, but I did want to point out that the categories were designed with different intentions. -Cswrye 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and I won't be heart-broken if they are kept separate. However, if they are, the next step, I think, is to find out what's going on in the Image categories (not someplace that I spend much time in), and see if there are more like these. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unless MS has a reason to oppose (since he also voted merge), I think I should probably withdraw this one, per comments above, and just the feeling that I should find out more information about such images first. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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 writing systems edit

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

The result of the debate was delete (duplicate on Nov 13 nomination).--Mike Selinker 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User writing systems - Already has been tagged for cfr, seems to have slipped through the cracks? - jc37 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The iso writing template looks extremely complicated.--Mike Selinker 08:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's to be done? - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I figured it out. Man, that was buried deep. I deleted the category.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Eastern Hemisphere edit

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Northern Hemisphere edit

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Southern Hemisphere edit

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Western Hemisphere edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Eastern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Northern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Southern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Western Hemisphere
These are all duplicated by Wikipedians in <continent> the distinction for never having left a region doesn't seem useful. - jc37 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is like the "Wikipedians who don't like X" categories. There is and infinite number of things that everyone hasn't done, so categorizing by them serves no purpose. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (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:Space 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Space Wikipedians - Besides, taking up "space"... : ) - jc37 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a humorous category; does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're all in space.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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 citizens of Lovely 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian citizens of Lovely - An internet comic's "joke". - jc37 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can self-identify as a citizen of this micronation.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that there will be Wikipedians who are members of the 421? And further, why should we categorise the members? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to think they aren't. If someone declares their nationality on Wikipedia, we don't check it. It's a moderately legit citizenship, in my opinion, so I'm not inclined to delete it.--Mike Selinker 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the other location cats, how do you see this one useful for collaboration? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think I have to. We've agreed that locational categories are good, and this meets my standard for a locational category, so there's no reason to kill it.--Mike Selinker 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason that "we've agreed that location categories are good" is because being from a location means that the person would be uniquely able to aid in collaborations related to the region. I guess I fail to see how the above, being a comic's joke, and a website's membership list, without being any actual "location", qualifies. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agrees with Mike.  Erielhonan  22:34, 25 November 2006 (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 Lunar Citizenship 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with Lunar Citizenship - Cute, but no. : ) - jc37 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure you can get this one, though.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Humor category; does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you observe Lunar Citizenship closely, you will learn that the program of Lunar Citizenship is actually legitimate. People have lent out spaces on the moon. But I doubt that many people here in WikiPedia own a piece of moon land.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Cswrye.I created this category, but Cswrye is right, it does not aid collaboration, it only satisfies one's curiosity as to how many other people share the same interest.However, it should be noted that it is not a humor category.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:46, 27 November 2006 (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 Galactic Citizenship 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with Galactic Citizenship - That includes all of us, I presume? : ) - jc37 08:00, 23 November 2006 (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 on Editor review 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians on Editor review - This category duplicates the WP:ER main page. Apparently it was possibly useful at one time, but the page it linked to has since been deleted. - jc37 07:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Categories have some advantages over lists, and they are even preferred in many circumstances. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could get me to look for people to help.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the category is rather out-of-date because WP:ER entirely streamlined its format. AFAIK it's not even used by ER anymore. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm with the deletionists on this one.Categories are generally self-selected, and in this case it's not very useful, it's redundant, and opens a bit of officialdom up for abuse.WP:ER is sufficient for people who care to browse these users, and there's an associated template.  Erielhonan  22:37, 25 November 2006 (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 are Ducky-approved 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-approved - See User:Keithgreer/mrducky. I am not certain, but this looks like a WP:SPAM violation. But even if not, it shouldn't be a category. - jc37 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I nominated this for deletion quite some time ago, and there was a solid consensus to keep it. Apparently, Ducky has a lot of supporters. I don't think it serves any purpose as a category though. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (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:Uncategorized 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Uncategorized Wikipedians - According to the category introduction: "This category is for Wikipedians who are not categorized in any way. See also Russell's paradox." - Cute, but shouldn't be a category : ) - jc37 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No paradoxical categories.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a humor category; does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Paradoxical.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deleting this category would force many other people to be included in it. Is that really what you want to do? :( Voretustalk 16:07, 1 December 2006 (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 addicted to Wikipedia edit

Category:Wikipediholic 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 "addicted", not ruling on "wikipediholic" because some votes did not address that category.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both or Merge Category:Wikipedians addicted to Wikipedia to Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians. - Is this useful in any way? - jc37 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [added merge option, per Mike Selinker's suggestion. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (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:Stub 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stub Wikipedians - According to the category page: "List of wikipedians which do not contain enough information on their user page to describe themselves." - According to who? And do we need a category for this? : ) - jc37 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stub is a useful term for real articles, but not this.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a category for people who are requesting help with their user pages. Perhaps we can consider merging into that one. Otherwise, delete. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (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:Elitist 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Elitist Wikipedians - According to the category page: "These Wikipedians are Better" - Better than who? People who add punctuation? : ) - jc37 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yuck.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. See also Elytis! NikoSilver 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration, and it fosters a negative attitude within the project. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declassify for the good of our society, and to separate our kind from the lower-class bourgeoisie.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --Gray Porpoise 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Wikipedians who deal unhealthily with their low self-esteem issues.  Erielhonan  22:39, 25 November 2006 (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 usernames with lowercase initial letters 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with usernames with lowercase initial letters - Similar to the previous. In addition, I don't think we need to categorise by Wikipedian username capitalisation preference - jc37 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves something of a useful purpose, as it serves to tell you what the user's "real" name is.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful for the same reason as {{lowercase}}. --tjstrf talk 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I understand such use for articles, why is it necessary as a category for Wikipedian usernames? A note/userbox on the userpage should be enough? - jc37 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In my case, because I dislike unnecessary userboxes and because people are often too dense to actually notice that my sig is uncapitalized. --tjstrf talk 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that you feel someone is more likely to notice a category at the bottom of your userpage, than a statement at the top of your userpage? - jc37 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I buy that. This category is cleaning up inaccuracy, however minor it may be.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If this is kept, does that mean I have to use it? I try to keep cats off my userpage. (I'm not sure whether the 'inaccuracy' involved here is fake or real; would linking to User:Tjstrf or User:Ais523 be 'inaccurate'; after all, that's the name used in page histories! --ais523 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'd have to agree with that. The reason for Template:Lowercase, is to explain that "out there" the real name of such-n-such is "x", while on Wikipedia, while a person may prefer that their initial letter is lower case, doesn't mean that it is. Since on Wikipedia, it's not. So "technically", this category name is false, such usernames don't have lowercase initial letters, but rather the user with those usernames wish that their chosen username had a lowercase first letter. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I really doubt that this category will help many people figure out that a users want their names lowercased, and certainly not as well as a userbox or simple note at the top of the page. However, there is some precedent for it in the existence of a similar category for articles, and I'm okay if it exists to maintain that consistency. —Cswrye 18:42, 30 November 2006 (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 underscores in their usernames 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 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with underscores in their usernames - This would seem to be similar to the alphabet ones recently deleted. - jc37 07:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete._Not_very_useful. --Gray Porpoise 18:50, 25 November 2006 (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 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 (general agreement as to removal of members, but no clear direction as to how).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians
  • Comment - Ok, before you think I've gone nuts...: ) - This is just a nomination for the deletion/removal of members within the category, NOT the category itself, or any of its subcategories. Since, essentially, we're all wikipedians here, this would just become a duplicate of the user list. It will likely involve changing individual userboxes, as well as userpages. If you agree, to make clear your opinion, say something like: Remove category members. - jc37 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove category members but not subcats or the category itself, as nominator. - jc37 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove category members.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members; would not keep up with ...WP:SIZE. NikoSilver 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members per nom. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would really like to see all the users in this category removed, but I think it's generally considered bad etiquette to add or remove users from an existing user category. The way that the Wikipedia:User categorization has traditionally handled it has been to ask users to add or removed themselves from categories instead. That may be something to consider doing instead, because a lot of users might not like to see their user pages edited against their will when the category does exist. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really compelling argument. A better way to handle this might be to put a banner at the top that encourages people to remove themselves from the category.--Mike Selinker 06:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this any different than any other CFD? A category is deleted, and the users are removed. In this case, we can place a further note/banner at the top of the page requesting that no one add themselves to the umbrella cat. However, when I checked a few, I've found several userboxes so far which categorize to it. There are also Wikipedians who somehow think that if you use a pipe "|" you can subcategorize yourself that way (Example: [[Category:Wikipedians|by education|student]]It's a mess, and an initial one-time bot clean-up would be more than helpful. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a subtle difference, but it's still one that might bother people. On a CFD, we're voting on what to do to a category, not to user pages. We only make changes to user pages because the categories no longer exist or have changed names, which is generally seen as a good faith edit. Removing someone from a category that does exist may not be taken well by some people, especially those who want to just be categorized as "Wikipedians" for whatever reason. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I think it is, but I know that I wouldn't want people to take me out of categories that I wanted to put myself in. Editing userboxes is kind of gray area because people who add userboxes to their user pages may not necessarily care about the categories that are attatched to userboxes. Also, you're not editing the user page itself. I would actually be okay with making changes to the userboxes that put users into this category. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members I came upon this category on someone else's userpage and thought about nominating it for deletion. Low and behold... -- tariqabjotu 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate userpages No use in having a category that can apply to every user; a category that applies to categories of users makes more sense. --ais523 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change name to Categories of Wikipedians or Wikipedians by.Users will be less inclined to add their user pages to such a list, because they no longer fit the description.  The Transhumanist   22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to calling it "Wikipedian categories", since that's pretty much what they are. But I suggest that such a "rename" be discussed after this nomination is done. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest not, since as Cswrye says, the current "non-deletion nomination" isn't really properly the function of this page (really you should just start a discussion at the talk page, or if you're looking for help with the heavy lifting, a bot task request).Rename to something more clearly indicating the desired scope.Alai 00:50, 2 December 2006 (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:Mediation Cabal Mediator to Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal 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 in the Mediation Cabal.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matching other subcategories of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (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.

November 22 edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in comic books 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 read comic books.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CfD. The nomination is copied below. --ais523 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

November 21 edit

Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter A over all the other letters edit

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. I sent a note to the creator asking him or her to stop. --Mike Selinker 19:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See nom below, we need these like we need alien invasion. Speedy delete all. ><RichardΩ612 UW 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Also:[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.

November 20 edit

Category:Wikipedians not wanting Francis to be desysoped edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. --HappyCamper 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 20 where I mistakingly listed it

Not gonna say too much as rationale for deletion should be self evident other than we cant all go just creating random categories for anything we want (otherwise could someone create Category:Wikipedians wanting Glen to have a new Porsche for me?? ;) Aka; Delete.  Glen  01:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 18 edit

Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter Z over all other letters edit

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

The result of the debate was speedily ZOOMed before the other 23 are created. --Mike Selinker 06:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter O over all the other letters I am also nominating these two categories for the same reason. ><RichardΩ612 UW 15:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter M over all the other letters
I cannot believe that this was even created. Can we delete this as speedily as possible, how is this useful? ><Richard0612 UW 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wow, six minutes after creation, you're fast. -Amarkov blahedits 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's currently empty, and if it's still empty in four days, speedy delete. -Cswrye 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A hunk of junk.--WaltCip 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Looks like good ol' vandalism. Anthony Rupert 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - NikoSilver 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Useless categories. VegaDark 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 15 edit

Category:Vandalized Users Pages edit

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

The result of the debate was deleted and salted by Kbdank71. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an incarnation of protected, deleted Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized.--RobertG ♬ talk 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a recreation of previously deleted content. —Cswrye 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - It's a recreation that needs to be salted per WP:SALT.--WaltCip 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salted.--Kbdank71 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait.. does that actually work for a category? Even if it's "protected" it will still list pages. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one time, there was a discussion about creating a bot that would remove articles from protected categories. I don't know if that ever happened though. —Cswrye 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't salt. Salting categories is an exercise in futility. --tjstrf talk 04:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's hardly a reasonable excuse. Don't do it because there's no point? I dread obfuscation.--WaltCip 11:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That used to be true, tjstrf, but it isn't currently futile.--RobertG ♬ talk 12:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't? Because you can definitely still stick things in salted categories... -Amarkov blahedits 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- and salt, if wanted. I wish "salting" caused such categories (and templates) to automatically show as a redlink, rather than blue. - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 14 edit

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamieAdams edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY. — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted, but I don't think WP:DENY is a justifiable argument because it's a guideline. Anthony Rupert 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as a user has an opinion, and has any written form of information to back it up, it's justifiable. Plus, the category wasn't created in good faith so that's more reason to delete it. Try to avoid WikiLawyering in obvious deletion categories such as these.--WaltCip 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to say it's not a guideline. By the way, what's WikiLawyering? Anthony Rupert 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not violate 3RR! I reverted exactly 3 times at the beginning of every 24 hour period!" -Amarkov blahedits 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and don't stuff beans up your nose.--WaltCip 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why does one person, a CONFIRMED SOCKPUPPET ABUSER no less, get a category just for them? This is just going to encourage sockpuppet abuse so people can get THEIR own categories, too. -Amarkov blahedits 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think delete is a good idea. This seems to be a part of a much larger system of vandal/sockpuppet watching: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. - jc37 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. I didn't realize that. In that case, Keep, things should not be deleted piecewise. -Amarkov blahedits 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonetheless, it's irrelevant information and we don't need a category to advertise this guy's puppetry.--WaltCip 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of larger system. If there's consensus that these informational categories fall under WP:DENY, then we can delete en masse at a later date. -- nae'blis 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency. --tjstrf talk 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well this is looking like it will turn out to be "no consensus"... - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nae'blis.I'm no fan of WP:DENY and I'm not at all certain any consensus exists for its promulgation as guideline, but I surely recognize that such consensus may emerge; at such emergence we will have, as Nae'blis well observes, to reconcile much of our present practice vis-à-vis vandals and sockpuppeteers with DENY qua guideline or policy, and so I imagine this to be a discussion we might later be obliged to revisit.In the meanwhile, though, the larger system serves some purpose and isn't categorically disfavored by the community.Joe 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 13 edit

Category:User Oxford Spelling to Category:User en-oed edit

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:User en-oed. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fit with standard language subcategories. OED seems to be the standard abbreviation, per Oxford spelling. -Amarkov blahedits 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. Works for me.--Mike Selinker 09:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least pending clarification. I created the category. Amarkov, could you point me to where the standard language subcategories are listed? I am not sure whether en-oed or en-GB-oed would be more appropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're listed under Category:User languages. And I picked oed over gb-oed because it doesn't seem to be so much a subset of British English as a different type. If you have an objection, I really don't know which one is right. -Amarkov blahedits 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated right now. If someone comes up with a good reason to use a different abbreviation, I'm fine with that too, but it should change from its current name. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per discussion above. - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

category:User piano-0 to category:User piano-1 edit

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

The result of the debate was merge to category:User piano-1. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving up on converting the babel categories for instruments (see Nov 7), but regardless I don't think we need 0-level categories for instruments.--Mike Selinker 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - I think that this is the only instrument with a 0 category. I think that having four categories is fine, and the 0 just makes things inconsistent with other instrument categories. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I found Template:User pit-0, though it's categorisation syntax needed work : )
  • 'Merge - Though I laughed after reading the mittens comment in the userbox : ) - jc37 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

WP members edit

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

The result of the debate was hippocratic rename (leave group 1 alone, move "members" in group 2, lowercase "Members" in group 3). --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This seems to settle the participants vs. members debate. This page seems to now accept both members and participants after "WikiProject (X)", and doesn't want Wikipedians in place of or in addition to either.--Mike Selinker 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories which only would change members to participants
  • Categories which could switch the group to the end

These are the last WikiProject categories. I'd like people to pick between two options: (1) rename all to "participants", or (2) just make sure they all end in lowercase "members". I hope everyone will agree on one naming scheme, but if we have to have two, let's get them consistent.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support usage of participants. One "participates" in a project. One is a "member" of an organisation. - jc37 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Participants in WikiProject <x>" per what I said below. If no consensus is reached, please speedy rename all the capitalised Ms to lower case. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per jc37. Oppose "Participants in WikiProject <x>". Consistency is key here.--WaltCip 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE we went throught this in July courtesy of Lady Alena and consensus was to leave them as is. It does not matter one bit if they're participants or members and we shouldn't have this coming up a mere 4 months later. Projects should be free to name their own categories.Rlevse 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment for the prior discussion on the same topic, same cats, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#WikiProject_participants Rlevse 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fixing stray caps, oppose forced changes from "members" to "participants".Each project should be free to use whichever term its members/participants/constituent particles/etc. prefer. Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they probably should be able to choose, too (members or participants), but I think we should encourage this as a better name :) -- Ned Scott 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced that it is a better name, for what it's worth; but CFD isn't really the best place to have a general debate on WikiProject semantics. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I suggest we comment on each talk page for these projects and see if they want to opt in or opt out, but (as I said above), don't make it sound like a dispute or something like that. Using participants is more welcoming and encourages not viewing WikiProjects as "clubs" (it's minor, I know, but it can leave a strong mental image). Plus,the consistency is an added bonus. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a very good point. You remind me of how I felt when I first came to wikipedia and saw all the projects, campaigns, and so on. I thought that you had to "apply" to become a "member", similar to RfA (compare to online sites, such as yahoo groups, in which some are open memberships, and some are by approval only). It took some extensive reading (and lack of finding such a thing), as well as some rather inviting WIkiProjects before I realised that that wasn't true. - jc37 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose conversion to participants, Support changing all cats to use lowercase members: It is a unnecessary hassle to change all the templates to reflect this. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nominated - I'm really not that concerned about exactly how we name these categories, but I do think that it would make them easier to find and use if there was a consistent naming convention. Sure, I know that we could change our minds later on, but I doubt that would happen if they are all named consistently. In fact, the best way to keep this discussion from coming up again is to rename them (the inconsistency is what is making them stand out, not the exact name used). Personally, I do like "participants" better than "members" for the reasons that Ned Scott mentioned above, but I would be willing to go with either one to reach consensus. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with a slight bias to rename. Except for "Categories which could switch the group to the end" where I think Rename. Doesn't that group really belong in the next section currently named "Participants in WPs"? See my more extended explanation in my comment in the next section. --David Göthberg 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are all wrong, policy and practise says "Wikipedians" instead of "members/participants". Se my comment in the next section. --David Göthberg 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. We already went through this before.Changing to this serves no purpose and is frankly anal-retentive.The potential disruption and change work isn't worth it at any rate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming them all to "participants", support making them all have members in lowercase.--Jersey Devil 11:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming: it's up to the WikiProjects how they name there sections. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose - leave the choice to the creators of those categories.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Participants in WPs edit

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

The result of the debate was rename to "WikiProject (X) participants" (roughly 7-4 vote). --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple change here.--Mike Selinker 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - Consistency, previous discussions, et al.--WaltCip 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I think we may also need to set up a special standard on categories created based on WikiProjects. We're getting this almost every week.--WaltCip 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's only one more set after this: the ones with "members" in their names. I'll nominate those when I get a chance, though there's no guarantee those folks will want their category names changed.--Mike Selinker 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. I like it as it is. The others should be renamed to fit in with these. Also there's a userbox thingy that automatically adds a category "Participants in WikiProject Whatever" to userpages. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: you're opposed to "WikiProject <x> participants", preferring "Participants in WikiProject <x>" ? - jc37 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, isn't that what I said? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but I do support the renaming of category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Science, but to category:Participants in WikiProject Science instead. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - for the sake of consistency. Lack of consistency bugged me when I set up our project's participant/member cat. -- Paleorthid 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It bugs me the other direction. Rlevse 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE we went throught this in July courtesy of Lady Alena and consensus was to leave them as is. It does not matter one bit if they're participants or members and we shouldn't have this coming up a mere 4 months later. Projects should be free to name their own categories. Rlevse 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it a big issue to change it? Wouldn't we still have to list it here if people in those WikiProjects (such as I) want to rename it on a per-project level? I doubt most people even care. For a "strong" oppose I don't see what you are so upset about. This is like the biggest non-issue of the year. I fail to see anything negatives about this renaming at all. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no point in opposing it if the change has no outstanding impact other than clarity and consistency. It's not a controversial topic. And 4 months is not "mere."--WaltCip 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is, we should not have to fight the same battle repeatedly, and your 'no outstanding impact' stmt is precisely why this should not have come up again. Rlevse 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment for the prior discussion on the same topic, same cats, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#WikiProject_participants Rlevse 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but WikiProjects can and should be able to be shaped by anyone, inside or outside the project. The project itself is usually a group only because not everyone wants to work on the same thing and/ or everything at once. Your original oppose seemed to be more about being hurt that no one asked the people in the WikiProject about the rename. Well, why would they? It's not a big deal, it's like asking someone if you can put a book back on their bookshelf when you see it on the ground. Ownership issues are not a good reason to oppose. WikiProjects are points of collaboration first and groups of editors second. If it was something more impactive then of course there would be a discussion first, but come on, this is ridiculous. -- Ned Scott 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for you category cabalists. Look in the mirror. You're right, you guys are being ridiculous. Not to mention you guys will want to change it to something else 4 months ago and all the projects will have to change templates, etc AGAIN. Rlevse 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus, here we come... @_@--WaltCip 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily here. We're 5-2 now in favor of renaming this set, but we'll see where we end up.--Mike Selinker 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Rlevse, no personal attacks, please.--WaltCip 01:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk to Ned first. Rlevse 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. ;-)
(In all seriousness, I don't really see why this set of renamings—unlike the one above—is generating such a fuss; they seem like fairly uncontroversial housekeeping even to someone as WikiProject-centric as myself.) Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. I hate those circular meta-discussions on trivial things; the last CFD ended as "no consensus" (due to "member"/"participant" dispute) and now we have the argument that, since it failed to reach consensus, all subsequent proposal must be dropped as well. (See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) ) Duja► 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (about the discussion above): Consensus can change. - jc37 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nominated - I'm really not that concerned about exactly how we name these categories, but I do think that it would make them easier to find and use if there was a consistent naming convention. Sure, I know that we could change our minds later on, but I doubt that would happen if they are all named consistently. In fact, the best way to keep this discussion from coming up again is to rename them (the inconsistency is what is making them stand out, not the exact name used). Personally, I do like "X participants" better than "participants in X", and I don't like the idea of categories being at the mercy of userboxes (it should be the other way around). —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename sort of. I do prefer the naming "WikiProject Projectname participants/members" since I think that is the logic order of the words. Since "WikiProject" is kind of the name space and the participants list is a subpage of the project. And I do like lowercase (probably since I am Swedish, we use lowercase for almost everything). However, to me as a Swede "members" sounds better, is shorter, easier to pronounce and much easier to spell. But I agree that the meaning of "participating" is better since it to me means "taking part", while "being a member" kind of implies one have to apply for membership or something. So in the end I think I slightly prefer "WikiProject Projectname participants". But I oppose forcing it onto the projects since I think that the projects should decide about their own name space below their project name. I suggest just suggesting the new naming to them and offering help to move the category if you like to do that. However, I suggest being a bit harsher when it comes to naming like "Members of / Participants in WikiProject Projectname" since they should not put things in front of "WikiProject Projectname" but after it in "their own name space". --David Göthberg 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. If this rename doesn't go through then it would be good to go to each project and ask them if they have a preference. -- Ned Scott 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woha! I went and read the policy document in question and guess what I found? Only one of all the WikiProject user categories has correct naming according to the policy, namely category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Science. As I understand the policy and practice it could also be named category:WikiProject Science Wikipedians. I took a look at many other user categories and all I can find do use such naming. Also take a look here: Wikipedia:User categorization. So it seems the consistent thing to do is to use the word "Wikipedians" instead of "members/participants". In this new case I am not sure which ordering of the words I prefer. --David Göthberg 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that interpretation of the standard, since "WikiProject" already does the disambiguation (the reason behind the standard). However, that said, I think that this would be a nice compromise. If we go this route, I prefer "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject <x>", for clarity, and based on previous discussions. - jc37 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, you are perhaps right that the important thing is that there is "Wiki(something)" in the names to disambiguate them from normal article space categories. And I still think that the names should begin with the "Wiki(something)" part. And I really like the word "participants" but I definitely think that "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject X" simply is too long. So perhaps this is a case where we should deviate from the practice that all user categories contains the word "Wikipedian(s)". Thus simply making it "WikiProject X participants"? Although "Wikipedians in WikiProject X" does look more like the other user categories so I think I slightly prefer that. Though this is a tough decision. --David Göthberg 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been many nominations on this page that ensure that "Wikipedian" is in the name of a user category, and they have generally been supported. However, like all guidelines, exceptions can be made if there is a good reason for them. In particular, there has been resistance to changing the names of instrument and language categories since they have had such a long-standing tradition in the babel system. This is another case where I think that an exception could be made since the "Wiki-" prefix provides the self-reference needed to distinguish these as project categories rather than article categories. Personally, I could go either way as long as the names are consistent, but shorter category names tend to be easier to handle. —Cswrye 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Anal-retentive unnecessary change. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Claiming anal-retentiveness is not an argument for opposing a change. WP:AGF.--WaltCip 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Renaming is up to the WikiProjects themself. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 11 edit

Category:Friendly Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, yet another category where it is against the rules for the category not to be applicable. Why do we have these? -Amarkov babble 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per arguments on Wikipedians encouraging civility and Angel Wikipedians. All-inclusive, non-encompassing.--WaltCip 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons on other UCfDs about such categories. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a little hesitant about this direction, guys. I don't have a strong reason to oppose deletion, but I also don't think it's too terrible to indicate an attitude like this. I think we risk being viewed as cold and heartless when we take something away like this. But again, I won't oppose it, because it's certainly internally consistent logic.--Mike Selinker 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not terrible to indicate an attitude like this, so the userbox should stay. But a category that should be both all-inclusive and assumed is useless. The issue isn't expressing the sentiment, it's using a category for it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I just don't want to end up as the joykiller forum.--Mike Selinker 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category should be all-inclusive and has no collaborative value. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial. -- Paleorthid 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 11:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Angel Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have actual angels editing Wikipedia, and the category seems to be mostly for showing off the emoticon. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Either you're using the "This user is an angel" box, which makes no sense, or you're using the other one, which, even ignoring its not being related to being an angel, is against the rules not to do. What else would you do, try to do the WRONG thing? -Amarkov babble 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but it's still a theoretically all-inclusive category, making it useless. -Amarkov babble 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories like this personally make me vomit.--WaltCip 22:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Gabriel isn't using it, so it's useless. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's obviously not literal, guys. We're talking about people who have dedicated themselves to doing the right thing and try to make the stays of others pleasant. Is it really hurting others to give people like that something? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being that the alternative is deliberately doing the wrong thing sometimes because you can't be bothered to do what's right and not trying to be pleasant. -Amarkov blahedits 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying we can't be kind, what we mean is that it's pointless to encourage kindness where kindness is already law.--WaltCip 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about any of that, but personally, I think a userbox/userpage comment is enough. What need is there for a category for this? - jc37 14:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've discovered that there's a large gap between kindness and civility, and while we have a policy encouraging civility, only in cases where the contributor is not "established" does it seem to be enforcable. (i.e. see the Giano arbcom case) On the other hand, this allows people to commit themselves to go the extra mile and actively be kind to others. (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a category for that. Categories are not supposed to be all-inclusive. Everyone should be kind. The alternative is that everyone who is not in that category is not kind, and it doesn't work.--WaltCip 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A userbox is fine, but we don't need a category. --kingboyk 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I know that the category name isn't meant to be taken literally, but it still doesn't serve any purpose as a user category. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - userbox is okay, but the user category is overkill and adds no value. -- nae'blis 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with bliss, box is fine, cat (as well as living wikipedians, 19XX births, 19XX deaths, etc) serve no useful purpose. Rlevse 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category will merely boost egotism. The userbox could be kept, but a list on this seems more like an "A-List".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

category:Users currently away from Wikipedia to category:Wikipedians who are not currently active edit

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

The result of the debate was merge. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created yesterday. This is identical to this deletion.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I'm inactive from WikiPedia, I wouldn't have the time to put myself into this category. Still, merge per nom. If we start getting delete votes, I'll change my vote.--WaltCip 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "not currently active" category is an extremely useful category for administrators and other such folk. If I know someone isn't going to respond for a while, that changes whether I'm going to ask him for help, or ask someone else to.--Mike Selinker 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you use a category to discover that they were inactive? Wouldn't a wikibreak template be more likely? --kingboyk 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem there is that it requires you to know the name of the user and go to their user page. The category is helpful if you can't remember exactly how an editor's name is spelled (since you can look through the category until you find them) or if you're just trying to contact previous editors in general without looking for any specific person. —Cswrye 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - user page/talk page notification is enough. - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These are equivalent, no good reason for both. Also, I do sense that a cat for this does serve a purpose. -- Paleorthid 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

category:Wikipedians who speak Runglish to category:User en-ru edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's "Russian English."--Mike Selinker 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:User en-ru to fit with Category:User en-au and the like, unless someone has a reason that's bad. -Amarkov babble 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another good suggestion. I amended the nomination as you suggest.--Mike Selinker 08:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:User en-ru per above. - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the notice. That's fine. - crz crztalk 01:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per amended nomination. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPER DUPER STRONG KEEP Rename per amended nomination. - That little comment was just me expressing my disgust with "STRONG" actions with meager arguments. ;) --WaltCip 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

category:Wikipedians who speak Dhivehi (Mahl) to category:User dv-mahl edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another language category outlier. There doesn't seem to be a different iso code for mahl, so it should use the dv category. Unless someone else knows better, of course.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User writing systems to category:Wikipedians by writing system edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User languages to category:Wikipedians by language edit

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

The result of the debate was merge. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems identical to the "User instruments" category we merged into category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. The babel categories wouldn't necessarily change, though.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/rename, I guess. It's tough to maintain consistency when you have an unwieldly amount of categories.--WaltCip 22:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename per nom, and "Wikipedians by..." convention. - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom - This will eliminate a redundant level in the categorization system. —Cswrye 05:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 10 edit

Soccer redux edit

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

The result of the debate was rename all. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I'd like to try again. Here we have two syntaxes where we only need one, as evidenced in the RC Strasbourg categories with only one member between them.--Mike Selinker 05:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Why did a lack of consensus whether to rename or delete, with NOBODY saying to keep the categories as they are, not default to rename? -Amarkov babble 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you asked, Amarkov. User:Kbdank71 and I have a gentleman's disagreement over how a discussion like that should end. KB says, essentially, if there's no agreement on a course, there's no consensus. I say, a nomination has two gates, the delete gate and the rename gate. If it it gets consensus on delete, it's deleted. If not, and the rest of the votes are for renaming, it gets renamed. The only way you get no consensus in my world is if the battle is between keep and either rename or delete (or both). But I'm probably in the minority of editors on this approach.--Mike Selinker 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems as legitimate as categories who would categorize fans of American football teams. Rename per nomination.--WaltCip 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems to be a discussion on CfD that F.C./A.F.C. should be FC/AFC? - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename;by any reasonable "single tranferable vote" reading of the sentiments expressed at the original nom.Alai 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized edit

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

The result of the debate was already deleted as re-creation.--Mike Selinker 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted content. I say delete and salt the earth.--Mike Selinker 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one probably should have been speedied. Either way, let's delete and salt this baby.--WaltCip 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly speediable, which I shall now do, I'd rather not get Punic with this unless recreation gets truly persistent.(A 'deleted' bluelink might actually be less effective in getting people to take the hint than a category redlink, for one thing.)Alai 23:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you still categorize people into a salted category anyway? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.You can categorise into a category for which there's no page at all, the only difference is the redlink.Salting actually makes that blue, but is "less subtle hint" not to make a category page than mere deletion.Part of the problem with recreation isn't so much persistence on the part of the original perp, as people 'patrolling' Special:Wanted categories, and (re)creating categories whether sensible or not.Alai 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User +25000 edits edit

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

The result of the debate was already deleted and a new category has risen in its place.--Mike Selinker 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unreasonably irritated by this category I nominated before because of its lousy syntax. I don't care much about the category:Wikipedians by number of edits subcategories, but I hope we can all agree that this one can't stand. If someone wants to create a properly named category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits, they should go ahead, but this has to go.--Mike Selinker 05:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's delete and salt. If we start getting into Babel categorization of editing, this place will seem less like Wikipedia and more like USENET. We have barnstars for that sort of thing. Those who place effort into their edits will receive rewards if they deserve it.--WaltCip 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 9 edit

Category:User conlang edit

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

The result of the debate was rename.--WaltCip 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I thought we were through with "User..." categories besides Babel... --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • rename.--Mike Selinker 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename not a proper category.--WaltCip 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play PS2 games edit

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

As with the below nomination, the result of the debate was rename to Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games.--WaltCip 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games. Joining with nomination below. Please make comments there.--Mike Selinker 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sony PlayStation 3 fans edit

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

The result was rename and, as per the amended nomination, the category will be changed to Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games.--WaltCip 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian PlayStation 3 fans, or suggest another name. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Just delete it. It's a waste of space, and it's the same as these other categories that have "WikiPedians who like Pizza Hut" or "WikiPedians who like iPods", etc.. Information not best presented through the category system.--WaltCip 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Though once this is done, I'd like to see a speedy rename which expands PS to PlayStation (or Play Station?) on the PS2 and PS3 categories. - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can do it here. I'm fine with "PlayStation 3 games." Anybody object?--Mike Selinker 00:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be the only sensible course of action that'll reach consensus.Support.--WaltCip 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 8 edit

Category:Child Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep edit

  • Speedy keep. No reason given for deletion and previous CfD was only two months ago. As usually, only a certain category from Category:Wikipedians by generation is nominated. Prolog 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the related discussion linked above. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my pseudo-nom on the related discussion. Also, remember that the argument that all user age categories are bad is only suitable to a blanket nom for all user age categories. -Amarkov babble 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cyde and Amarkov you're way too paranoid! You know we aren't that stupid! Please! This should be kept.

Booksworm Talk to me!

Cyde, big question, if you contest this policy, why on earth would you have a userbox from this category? Booksworm
  • Keep per my arguments in the born in 1993 category discussion. Thryduulf 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CHILD specifically talks about Wikipedians who self-identify as being under 13. If we don't allow Wikipedians under the age of 13 to disclose their age at all (which is what this nomination seems to be going towards), there would be no point in WP:CHILD at all. That wouldn't make much sense, would it? --- RockMFR 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having them not disclose their age in the first place would be a far better cure wouldn't it?

Delete edit

Delete, see related discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you support it. You can't delete things per a PROPOSAL, because nobody is obligated to follow it. -Amarkov babble 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's how proposals become policy. I can recommend deletion on any grounds that make sense to me. Nobody else has to agree with my rationales, of course.--Mike Selinker 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you can recommend deletion for whatever you please. You can recommend deletion because your dog is black. That doesn't lend any credibility to your position. For that, you have to give GOOD arguments. -Amarkov babble 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is aware of your position, Amarkov.--Mike Selinker 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...? -Amarkov babble 02:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard you the first time. In the 1993 argument below, I heard you the first through eleventh times. Please register your opinion and then let others do so without the attacks and constant challenges. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That might make sense were this a vote, but this is a debate. Thus, I'm going to continue to support my opinion, not just register it and then never respond to others. -Amarkov babble 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever works for you. But I suspect that comments like "For that, you have to give GOOD arguments" will not win you any converts on this forum. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" but this is a debate." - Semantically, I might suggest that it's "a discussion to determine consensus", but "debate" is accurate enough, I suppose (I've used both terms myself : ) - jc37 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Too potentially harmful for subjects of the userbox.Powers T 01:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many things are potentially harmful. Not censoring Wikipedia is potentially harmful. That isn't grounds for deletion. -Amarkov babble 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please note my use of the word "too".Obviously, "this is potentially harmful" is not sufficient grounds—but that's not what I said.Powers T 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concerns raised by others who "vote" delete. Also, not enyclopedic. And, yes, I'm happy for all agegroup categories to go if folks think is ageism. --kingboyk 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IANAL, and obviously would defer to whatever the applicable law is, but it would seem to me that this category might be useful as a compromise. Delete all the year specific age categories for those under 13, and substitute this category instead. However, despite my comments above for a possible compromise, my preference is to delete the category. (I'm not even sure about the usebox, in this case.) - jc37 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [merged my comments with my vote for clarity, since someone refactored the discussion.][reply]
  • Delete - WP:CHILD and 38-year-old child molesters could put the userbox in their user space.--WaltCip 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too much like providing a buffet for paedophiles. Possibly recreate as Category:Wikipedians who are less than 21 years of age or Category:Wikipedians who are less than 30 years of age. (or 25)... As I understand it, one of the 'stans in Central Asia has 30 has the transition age... and 21 is drinking age in many places, 25's just a nice round number. Either way, we would not distinguish children readily, as college kids will also fit under these definitions. 132.205.44.128 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category has all the wrong possible uses.--Cyde Weys 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

COPPA only applies to commercial sites which solicit information. This is neither. -Amarkov babble 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, we're not collecting information from minors. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be useless, isn't it? We're just redoing the previous discussion. -Amarkov babble 04:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By logic, this argument can't have an agreement on keep or delete, or the results of the previous argument will be nullified and we'll have inconsistency.--WaltCip 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost makes me wish someone nominated all the user age categories and actually got them deleted. -Amarkov babble 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold!.--WaltCip 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't WANT them deleted. Thus "almost".-Amarkov babble 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Under-15 is a common amateur sports division (and U-18, U-20)... which could also be used as a dividing line. 132.205.44.128 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, instead of providing a buffet for pedophiles, we can provide a buffet for young adult-philes? What does that solve? -Amarkov blahedits 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is obviously going to run smack-dab into no consensus zone again. No possible way we can reach a compromise, perhaps by consulting the WikiPedia staff?--WaltCip 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A compromise will happen at such time as WP:CHILD leaves proposal stage. And staff intervening will raise havoc, seeing as even the RfArb on whether or not it was rejected is opposed by people claiming too much intervention in policy. -Amarkov blahedits 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anyone under 18 (21 in some places) can be considered a child. (Radiant) 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 7 edit

Instrument debabelization edit

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

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I think this ends our conversion of the Babel system. As of now, Babel should be reserved for languages, computer languages, and instrument proficiencies.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a trio of popular instruments to start this process, seeing if people agree with the plan. We have now merged all of the non-language babel categories except for the instruments. Like for cars, video games, aircraft, anime, and the others we've deleted, I believe that having babel categories for instruments has no encyclopedia construction purposes (that is, I can imagine wanting to know if a user played the sax, but not how well). We've also converted all "User (instrument)" categories to "Wikipedian (instrument)-ists" or "Wikipedian (instrument) players," so we have analogs for all these categories to feed into. Doing so will not increase the size of those categories, as the user instrument subcategory template (which will need changing) already puts, say, "User guitar-1" into "Wikipedian guitarists". Note that this plan will not delete any userboxes, just the separate categories.Let me know if you agree with this direction, and if it goes somewhere, I'll nominate the rest.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose.Like the language templates, proficiency is an important consideration when it comes to instruments.For example, I'm currently in Category:User piano-1, but without the important qualification of -1, I would feel obligated to remove myself entirely from the pianist category.This is similar to a person who knows some elementary amount of (say) German but would not want to be considered a German-speaker.Powers T 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:Instruments regarding this proposal.It was not an attempt at vote-stacking, just an attempt to notify interested editors.Any other suggestions for notification options would be appreciated.Powers T 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: There is a clear value to categorizing Wikipedian instrumentalists by proficiency, as this can be useful for finding users who are willing to make freely licensed recordings of musical pieces. I'm not sure we need such a high degree of precision, but having a user category for advanced and virtuoso players of individual instruments is useful; one for beginning and intermediate players would probably be useful too (as these folks are certainly a valuable resource for article editing even if they don't choose to provide recordings). Besides these two categories, I don't see a need for others, but I think it's clear that we should offer a facility for sorting instrumentalists by skill level. —ptk✰fgs 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would enthusiastically support this proposal. So "0" and "1" categories would go into "Wikipedian novice (instrument)-ists" and "2," "3", and "4" categories would go into "Wikipedian (instrument)-ists"? That works for me. I amended the proposal accordingly. (I'm also fine with "Wikipedian X-ists" and "wikipedian advanced X-ists".)--Mike Selinker 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a little coarse for my tastes.Four levels seems ideal to me.Powers T 01:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Technically the languages could be placed in such a system (WP novices; WPs; WP advanced;). I think the babel system exists, and has a long time of usage. If we want to discuss changing the babel system, fine, but I don't think we should do it in this way. Please let me know if you think I've missed something : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who encourage civility edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't they all do so? --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's for categories like this that I wish that this page was transcluded onto the page that gets 1023 times more viewers. Picaroon9288 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See the talk page for a query about that. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would presume that this category should include all Wikipedians : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate deleting categories like this, but everyone should be civil, and having a category like this doesn't really serve a purpose. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CIVIL speaks for itself.--WaltCip 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Astrology user templates edit

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes, found lurking in Category:CfD 2006-10. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 6 edit

WP participants edit

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Category:WikiProject Germanic Mysticism contents are entirely mainspace articles, all of which are in category:Nazi mysticism, which I repurposed as a mainspace category. So the Germanic Mysticism category should be deleted as part of CFD, where I have moved it.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the complete list of WikiProject members, but it is the ones who don’t have the “WikiProject X” format. I’m not brave enough to nominate the ones who have no difference from the others except for having “Members” or “Participants in” or some other construction. But I figured we should attempt to agree that all such categories should have the correct name of the project in them. As always, please point out errors in the nominations and I will fix them.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as no big deal, but this has been raised recently and closed as "no consensus" or "no big deal". Most of the categories was created through userboxes so a move wouldn't be a big job. I'll be bold and move the Contract bridge category myself (scratched). Duja► 13:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but it should be category:WikiProject AfD closing participants to match the project. TimBentley (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using participants (I think you can nom all the members ones, though I understand your hesitancy), and the general format above. (I haven't taken the time yet to go through them all for name specificity : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename and echo Jc37's comments. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 1 edit

These all seem noncontroversial, and can close when the others do.--Mike Selinker 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are go for speedy delete-er, rename.--WaltCip 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except I would prefer to be go for speedy rename.--Mike Selinker 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename : ) - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 2 edit

  • Go for speedy rename.--WaltCip 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. -- Ned Scott 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

WP collaborators edit

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

The result of the debate was rename except MOTD (to be followed up).--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These don’t have the formats listed above, so I’ve moved them out of the WikiProject section and into category:Wikipedians by collaboration, where they should match their brethren there.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User template coder-n edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly tagged this one under CSD C1, but since it's been around for a while, and since it is very hard to be sure that it hasn't had a user for four days (a requirement of CSD C1) I've decided to nominate this the slow way. Picaroon9288 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, silly. Template coding categories are not supposed to be joke Babel categories. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although all of them are a bit silly, this seemed to be the most utterly useless one. Some of the others might be helpful in finding someone to assist you in designing a template, like 4 and 5, but those two make this one completely redundant. Picaroon9288 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as it is empty.--Mike Selinker 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned, I considered db-g1, but decided against speedy deletion. However, my concerns with this meeting the criteria were minor, so you should feel free to tag the cat with {{db-catempty}} so as to speed things up. Picaroon9288 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the speedy tag. This shouldn't be deleted while there is a template that uses it. The template should be nominated at TfD first and you can let the category follow by default. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The userbox is humourous, and could be kept if made independent from the other template userboxes. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We've deleted many categories and still left their templates and userboxes in place. The two are separate. So far no one here has opposed userboxes about food preferences or belief in one's own handsomeness, but we've killed their categories for being unuseful in building an encyclopedia. So speedy deletion may or may not be appropriate, but deleting the category and keeping the template (if that gets consensus) certainly is.--Mike Selinker 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Though I do think that the template could use some editing, it's would appear to actually be part of a babel system explaining the template markup programming ability of the user in question. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; it's part of a babel system explaining the template markup ability of its users. What I don't understand is how we need this one and Category:User template coder-5, which is why I nominated it for deletion. Could you clarify what purpose you think that this one serves? Picaroon9288 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple thoughts. The "5" level of the babel system is a new addition, and may or may not be appropriate for programming languages (no opinion atm). The "N" level is for native speakers of a language, and now that you bring it up, I think that all the "N" levels of programming languages should definitely be deleted (unless we have robots in our midst : ) - jc37 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's empty, and it's purpose isn't clear. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in burritology edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burritology is a neologism invented to annoy a teacher. This is, in essence, a "Wikipedians who eat..." category without those exact words. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on the foundations of a WikiPedia rule - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.--WaltCip 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VegaDark 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gray, I don't think the word was invented to annoy a teacher.The Langmaker site isn't serious; see the disclaimer ("Please don't mistake this site for being an accurate dictionary; by design, it's not, but is rather a place to celebrate word coinings").On the other hand, the word burritology has been in use for at least a decade, having been popularized by the original Burrito Pagewebsite in the article, "Landmark Texts of Burritology".This website (along with the term "burritology") was featured in Sunset, v196.n5 (May 1996): pp100(6). , Restaurant Business,01/15/97, Vol. 96, Issue 2, Database Magazine; Apr/May97, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p33, 4p, 3bw, , and Texas Monthly; Oct97, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p144, 6p, 2c.According to KFOR 1240, the Burrito Page was "devoted to advancing the fledgling Science of Burritology -- an interdisciplinary practice combining Burrito Studies with Modern Astrology. By choosing from various fillings, cheeses, extras and salsas, you can gain valuable insights into your personality, life, past and future". More recently, it has been popularized by burritophile.com, which refers to John Roemer's 1993 essay "Cylindrical God" as the "base text for the then-emerging science of burritology."Other sites, such as burritoeater.com and sfburrito.com represent the major burritologists working in the field today. (Heh)Wikipedian burritologists are presently hard at work on four major research projects: Burrito, San Francisco burrito, List_of_burrito_fillings, and Timeline_of_the_burrito.As a category, "burritology" is as encyclopedic, as let's say, Wikipedians interested in psionics, which currently has 50 members. :-) —Viriditas | Talk 06:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Burritologist Wikipedians and categorize under Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle per above links. This is a documented lifestyle. —Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism in the making : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Keep; I think that my colleague Viriditas has made the case ably for the long-term endurance of the term "burritology" as used by other serious burrito scholars, so whether it is a neologism is probably a matter of debate. I do understand the hesitation to describe burritology as a formal field of study, although I think the case for burritology is actually considerably stronger than, say, astrology, given that burritology has a verifiable set of objects of studies and a verifiable set of outcomes, albeit also sometimes subjective ones. I am also not sure how I feel about describing burritology as a "lifestyle"; that is, people who are devoted to eating burritos are not always devoted to the analysis of burritos; so I would argue that burritology is in fact an analytical project undertaken, admittedly, mostly by people who practice the lifestyle of burritophilia. (This is not unusual in scholarly undertakings; for instance, most people who are anthropologists of dance also are dancers themselves in one form or another.) In my case I feel that my "lifestyle", if I have one, is as a burritophile (I'm kind of against the idea of having a lifestyle, but I will bow to the larger culture on this one) while my activity and identity is as a scholar. And since one of my fields of interest is the history, culture, politics and culinary development of the burrito, I consider myself to be in part a burrito scholar. If we are to rename the field from burritology, I would suggest "Burrito Studies", appreciating its necessarily interdisciplinary nature, and rename the category, "Wikipedians Interested in Burrito Studies"; or alternately, rename the category as "Wikipedian Burrito Scholars." Along these lines, I would like to commend my colleague Viriditas for the advancement of the description of this important field within Wikipedia. Joewright 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a neologism to me. Besides, there's no burritology article, so I don't think that this category would serve any practical purpose. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 4 edit

Category:Wikipedians who use Flags of the World edit

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is misleading, since it's actually for wikipedians who contribute to FOTW, and should be named accordingly. I suggest renaming it to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World to reflect its actual usage. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved from main categories for discussion.--Mike Selinker 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have good televisual taste edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - They do? Could we have a citation/reference of that?Oh wait, it's a category, so no refs, we better Listify.. But wait, we can't listify this into mainspace... etc. - jc37 09:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "my preferences are better than your preferences" category. Delete.--Mike Selinker 15:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculously undefined. My televisual taste is perfect based on my- uh- own tastes, but it sucks from others' perspective. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obfuscation.--WaltCip 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too opinionated. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 17:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flatulent Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TMI.--Mike Selinker 08:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Cochin edit

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Kochi, since Cochin is now Kochi. -- ProveIt (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Co-nominating Category:Wikipedians born in 1994 and Category:Wikipedians born in 1995. Actually, nominating is probably the wrong term, since I want them kept. They were previously deletedhere, but I feel that using WP:CHILD, not having close to consensual support, wasn't a reason to delete them. Given the rather low percentage in support of it, I suspect the issue was simply unequal representation. Thus, listing here.Amarkov babble 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add to the nomination as I do actually want them deleted, and was intending to relist them today. These categories were deleted in September (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6), recreated, speedied by me over the last few days, and recreated yet again. I would ask editors to cast their minds back to the cute1 4 u episode and the resulting debate about personal info of young people and protecting them on Wikipedia. I feel that there are two sides to the battle: reducing the amount of info young people reveal on wiki, and (relevant here) encouraging them not to reveal they are children in the first place. If we don't know that an editor is a child they are then indeed free to edit without discrimination. These categories actually hinder not help their "equal representation". Please note that these categories are fed by {{User current age}}; if we decide to delete the categories we ought to mandate that that template refuse to create categories for years of birth which could contain people 13 years or under. Of course if we keep the categories no further action is needed. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, see Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've seen it. What's your point? Did you even read the nomination? Prolog 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is pretty bad, seeing as that argument is pretty much why I did this... -Amarkov babble 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Wikipedians born in YEAR. Deleting only certain categories is age discrimination that also leads to internal inconsistency. WP:CHILD is not only a proposed policy, but unlikely to go through in the first place. Prolog 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is about the third time this has come up. At least so far, they always go away.And Prolog is entirely correct, it is most certainly age discrimination.But so are our voting, drinking, and truancy laws. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but that's not really what matters most. What matters is that "Delete, see WP:CHILD" is basing the decision on a policy that does not have anything remotely close to consensual support. -Amarkov babble 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, it's not fair.I'm not arguing its fair.I'm just saying it's probably not about to change.I could be wrong, we'll see.I sort of doubt it though, like I said, this has happened before. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was aware that it's come up before. We'll see. Now I'm going to add the standard "discussion, not ballot" template before we get flooded with people asked to come here. -Amarkov babble 00:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless all "Wikipedians born in YEAR" categories are deleted. There is no policy against revealing one's age even if one is under 13, and there is currently no consensus regarding whether WP:CHILD should prohibit stating one's age as 12 or younger or revealing certain types of personal information or take any of several other suggested options; this is what's keeping it from being made policy. CameoAppearance orate 00:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, removing them all would be fine. Like I said, I agree that it's not fair. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would people stop it with comparisons to the rest of the "Wikipedians born in YEAR" categories? If you want to debate that, make another CfD for them in general. Reasons should be given for why these should be kept/deleted, not just why they are on equal status with others. -Amarkov babble 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This has been copied from Categories for discussion, where I accidentally put it. This version has the text, so you can check it was copied correctly. -Amarkov babble 03:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm confused as to why you don't want the "Wikipedians born in YEAR" argument. It supports your position, that the categories in question are being unfairly deleted, based on interpretation of a not-yet-consensual policy. --RoninBKETC 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I personally can't see any hugely compelling reason to keep any of them, for adults too. If it comes down to keeping these because folks feel it's age discrimination otherwise, or deleting all of them, I'd opt for the latter. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nom. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This all-inclusive category shouldn't even be a category, since there are millions and millions of people who were born in 1993 who are either unable to, do not want to, or could not care less about posting in this category.--WaltCip 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of users under these age groups is a bad idea for many reasons. It is inviting trouble that Wikipedia does not need. Most importantly, it does nothing to help us write "great articles". So not a problem to delete. FloNight 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent please. Keep these categories until all "wikipedians by year of birth" cats are nominated for deletion (I would support deleting the lot of them since they're not particularly useful, but deleting an arbitrary subset is unfair). >Radiant< 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Please, if your argument is that no user age categories are useful, save it for a general CfD. That's not the point here. The problem is, we would get both the people citing WP:CHILD and the people saying that no user age categories are useful. That might very well tip the scales for deletion. However, when someone else nominates the rest of the categories, it might end up with no consensus. Then we have these categories deleted without the rest simply because they fail WP:CHILD, with nobody having actually debated whether or not failing that was a good reason for deletion. -Amarkov babble 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all "Wikipedians born in xxxx" categories, these included. It thoroughly escapes me how these could be useful. In addition, I find WP:CHILD persuasive and advocate deleting these under its reasoning as well. —ptk✰fgs 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's obvious that these arguments won't stop, I might as well respond to them. Here's how they can be useful. You know how you might go to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux to help on the Linux article? These work in the same way. If you need someone to help in a teenage/child/adult/senior related article, you can browse through the Wikipedians born whenever categories and see if you can find someone. -Amarkov babble 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh purleease... that's exactly the kind of discrimination you say you're aiming to avoid. How do you know a 14 year old isn't going to be interested in Val Doonican and a retired gent isn't an expert on the Teletubbies?! --kingboyk 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I actually supported deleting these categories earlier, but WP:CHILD is highly contested, and it shouldn't be considered a policy (or even a guideline) right now. Until we've reached consensus on this, I think that they should be allowed. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the under-13 categories and bar against recreation by modifying the templates. I don't mind the by-year categories for people whom I feel are old enough to make informed decisions about putting themselves at risk on the internet. But I think you have to make a judgement call to stop that at some age, and for me WP:CHILD suggests 13 is a good age for that.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have to make a judgement call to stop that? AGE is not personally identifying information, and WP:CHILD doesn't prohibit people under 13 giving their ages, anyway. -Amarkov babble 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, Amarkov, but I disagree with it. I think informed decision-making ability starts about that age, and so I'm comfortable using this tool to help protect those I don't feel can make those decisions by themselves. This category creates a visible pool of people who fit that description, and that makes me less comfortable. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. However, I question why you, or anyone else here, has the right to judge what is necessary to protect people against their will. Their parents should have the power to decide how far to protect them, not people at User categories for discussion. On another note, this is turning into quite a little miniature version of WP:CHILD. -Amarkov babble 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have the right to create an environment which a parent might deem safe or unsafe. That involves lots of little decisions like this.--Mike Selinker 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The price of throwing out WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored seems too high just to prevent children from giving ages. It's not like we don't have young admins. -Amarkov babble 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a parent or anyone doesn't think Wikipedia is safe, then they don't have to spend time here; simple as that. If this category is deleted, then all the other 'Wikipedians born in' categories should be deleted as well. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical. Anthony Rupert 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then I'll nominate them for deletion posthaste after this consensus.--WaltCip 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine, just don't use the fact that all of them should be deleted to get this subset deleted. Because if you do that, and then the others get kept, there is a problem. -Amarkov babble 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please explain to me what exactlly the big problem is that people have with this category? Sure, there are several people that have been born in 1993 that don't care about the category, but where's the rule that says that all users absolutely have to post in every category that pertains to them? Anthony Rupert 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHILD. Some people just think it has good arguments and use them, and others don't understand the fact that it isn't policy, so "Delete because of WP:CHILD is not an argument by itself. -Amarkov babble 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus, then, isn't an argument over whether the category should be deleted, but if WP:CHILD stands as an effective guideline/policy.--WaltCip 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Thryduulf 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.I don't think we should be facilitating the advertising of pre-teens' ages.Powers T 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because...? -Amarkov babble 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because.--WaltCip 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, good comeback. (sarcastic clapping)
But seriously, I don't see it as facilitating the advertising of preteens ages. As I said before, if any user on here doesn't want people to know his/her age, then they don't have to post it. Unless you're an autobiographer, I don't think any user on here posts every single thing about their personal life. Anthony Rupert 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, te be consistent with the other categories. Disclosure is totally voluntary, Wikipedia is not your parents and shouldn't feel obligated to act for them. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anthony Rupert. Wikipedia is not ageist. Wikipedia is also non-profit, and noncommercial, so I don't buy the COPPA argument. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - COPPA does not apply; Wikipedia is not censored; Wikipedia does not, and must not, have loco parentis; WP:CHILD is not policy, and (imho rightly) does not stand a cat in hell's chance of becomming policy; Wikipedia is not ageist; etc. Thryduulf 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This debate seems to be dragging on. Should we stamp no consensus or should we extend it for a few more days, or weeks (or months)?--WaltCip 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no point in extending it, we'll reach a consensus no sooner than WP:CHILD will. -Amarkov babble 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close it soon as no consensus. I wonder if we should consider pointing the Wikimedia Foundation's corporate counsel to this discussion. Either they think they're covered by COPPA or not, and it doesn't really matter if we disagree.--Mike Selinker 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The debate isn't really about COPPA; very few think it actually applies. -Amarkov babble 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, I'm closing it.--Mike Selinker 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 3 edit

TV fans edit

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

The result of the debate was rename all.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match all other categories of category:Wikipedians interested in television and category:Wikipedians by musician.--Mike Selinker 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the Stones category and it sounds good to me :-). - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and per previous discussions : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who always wear socks edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a stretch to me.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who dislike long sleeve shirts edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be the least heated dislike category we've seen.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem enencyclopedic and is unneeded. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Picaroon9288 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and because (from A New Argentina) - "Argentinos, Argentinos, we are all shirtless now..." : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't trying to make it like a MySpace category; I thought the category was acceptable simply because of the existence of categories like Wikipedians who always wear socks. Anthony Rupert 06:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic as can be. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a laughable category.--WaltCip 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I don't think it's fair to call it a laughable category because I already explained that I thought it was okay to create it because a category like Wikipedians who always wear socks (which I didn't create, by the way) is already in existence. Anthony Rupert 11:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That category is also being deleted.--WaltCip 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anthony, I wouldn't take it as a personal indictment.Nobody's saying you were dumb to create it, just that it's not a good category to keep around, it turns out.You made a perfectly honest mistake; we all do it all the time. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Unencyclopedic. VegaDark 07:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - amusing but useless. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Orange Julius edit

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the Culver's category below, and from the same user. Gots to go.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my reasoning down at the Category:Wikipedians who eat at Pizza Hut and Category:Wikipedians who eat at Culver's Frozen Custard entries. With all respect to Anthony, I just don't think these categories are a good idea. Picaroon9288 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no reason to use Wikipedian categories to advertise businesses.We're writing a neutral encyclopedia, not plugging consumer products. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote what I said below, there is a "possibility for subconscious advertisement." However, the creator seems to have been acting in good faith and without the intention of advertisement. Picaroon9288 00:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm certainly not making any claim about anybody's intentions.Whether subconscious or whatever, it's not ok for what are effectively ads to start appearing on WP user pages.I haven't begun to question anybody's good faith.I'm talking about actions, not intentions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 1 edit

Category:Druidic True Neutral edit

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Druidic True Neutral Wikipedians, found it lurking. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As have I :^) Seriously, I don't think these kinda ridiculous but reasonably illuminating categories should be bounded by something as temporal as an edition of a game. If the alignment categories are reasonable, so's this one. But it should definitely deserves a rename to Category:Druidic True Neutral Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 00:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm suitably impressed : ) - (no sarcasm intended whatsoever) - As for the rest, I think they should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, otherwise, delete. (I think it's rather similar to the "Han shot first" discussion.) I was just noting that Druidic True neutral is idiosyncratic to AD&D. (3.0/3.5 D&D isn't AD&D, any more than AD&D is Basic/Expert/etc D&D.) - jc37 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'd say it's not really possible to shoot Greedo, but it is possible to be good. So these pass the test with me.--Mike Selinker 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, unless it can make a will save against 17. —ptk✰fgs 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I think that the alignment categories are different from the "Han shot first" category in that it can refer to the personality of the person rather than his or her interests, much like the subcategories in Category:Wikipedians by Myers-Briggs type. For example, I listed myself as Lawful Good because I believe that reflects my personality, even though I've never played the game itself. That being said, I wouldn't be upset with a delete because I'm not sure if personality categories are all that important in terms of aiding the project. —Cswrye 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think all the comments above pretty much cement deletion : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adhering to a D&D 3.0+ standard represents a systemic bias. Pre-WotC versions of D&D have every right to be represented in Wikipedia as well. There is no reason that a Wikipedian should have to self-identify with an alignment that conforms to such an arbitrary standard. --RoninBKETC 08:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the discussion above, then I think you totally misunderstood it. Of course a user can place such a userbox on their userpage (I would presume). The question here is: a.) should such a category exist. and b.) what category would be most appropriate for said userbox if kept.My opinion on "a" is delete. But if kept, I suggest Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons be the category. It's more useful for collaboration, etc. However, whether a wikipedian feels that they are best represented by good, neutral, evil, or even a sign of the zodiac, is just not something we should categorise by. - jc37 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kinky Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was keep--Mike Selinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another unencyclopaedic nonsense category.--Konst.ableTalk 13:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Read further into the category: it deals with an alternative lifestyle. Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in BDSM.--WaltCip 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename. If kept, keep current name. - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems as legit as any of the sexuality categories.--Mike Selinker 07:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

User bss-X edit

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn: listed on WP:CFD/WU. TimBentley (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These 4 categories are subcategories of Category:User bss, the category for bass singers which is due to be merged into Category:Wikipedian singers, but say they are for bass guitar players. The appropriate categories are Category:User bass guitar-1 and similar. Thus these categories have no use. All empty by the way. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • These can be speedied, as the "bss" scheme is going away. I put them in with the rest of the categories to be deleted.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/November_2006&oldid=1223923631"