Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | User‎ | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/April 2007)
< March 2007 May 2007 >

April 29 edit

Administrators by country edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, subcategorizing national user categories based upon who among them is an admin is bad idea. As Jimbo himself said, "Adminship is no big deal." While the main administrators category is meant to facilitate finding an admin, these categories do nothing but elevate adminship above other users and make it look like a big deal, which is a Bad Thing. I foresee that some will say "but they facilitate collaboration." No, in fact, they don't (or, at least, they shouldn't). There is no reason whatsoever that a Canadian admin is any better suited to using his/her administrator tools on a Canada-related article than a Peruvian or Czech one is; in fact, in certain situations, it may be the opposite. We should delete these categories because they serve to divide Wikipedia between admins and non-admins. Picaroon (Talk) 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as overcategorization of a group that should be treated as a single worldwide group. Those who are really interested can find the intersection between Category:Wikipedia administrators and the various Category:Wikipedians by location. –Pomte 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Picaroon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe the point of creating them initially was something like 'If X is in Category:Australian Wikipedia administrators, X will possibly be online at such and such time, and therefore be able to help me'. However, we seem to be a big bunch of insomniacs, so I don't think that really works :) Also useless for people like myself who identify as bi-national and have been placed in two categories. So, delete per nom. – Riana ऋ 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're certainly right about that - these categories are more geared towards providing user information than being used for collaboration. As to finding someone who is awake and therefore able to help, the deletion and block logs will do that. Picaroon (Talk) 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, that's definitely more efficient. – Riana ऋ 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An excellent argument for deletion; I came here thinking I'd !vote "Keep". ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "Wikipedia administrators" category is good enough. I don't care where an administrator is from as long as they can help me if I need their assistance. Acalamari 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of many cases where I might want an editor of a certain nationality, so don't nominate those categories, but there are no cases in which someone should specifically want an admin of a certain nationality. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep precisely per Amarkov's argument: I want to be able to find an admin of a certain nationality to help identify vandalism that might be specific to such a nationality. In addition, I can't see any way that including this hurts the project, yet plenty of ways that it could help. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Finding an admin comes from a specific country means being able to find an admin who may know something about national issues of that country - to identify hoaxes, inaccurate statements etc. Od Mishehu 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you need an admin to do that? Many non-admins are just as capable of providing such assistance. VegaDark 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#Intersection by location. While I understand the concern of having someone who may know something about the topic, that's pretty much nullified, since we also have Wikipedian location cats. - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I removed myself from such a category just a week before. I do agree that wikipedia is global in character and we the wikipedians should not try to segment ourselves in so many categories. --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Barfbagger 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ^demon[omg plz] 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo and Picaroon. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - First of all, this falls under "Supporter/critic of X", and is not a "not" category per se. Second, whether global warming of any particular type is notable is beyond the scope of this discussion. But even discounting those comments, it still came up No consensus. A remaining main concern is that it's essentially unfair to single out one support/critic category, and not the rest. So I think at this point, the next step, if someone is still interested, would be to nominate all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by political issue in one or more group nominations. Otherwise, repeated nominations of these categories are starting to look like WP:SNOW discussions resulting in No consensus/keeps. - jc37 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a NOT category, which is prohibited by precedence based on previous user categories. Why deny fact, anyway?

  • Delete as nominator.--WaltCip 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. YechielMan 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category does not help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a "not" category. Not useful. User:Jossi 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "not" category. Although "Fact" is not proven - a strong correlation, yes - and skeptic does not mean deny. Barfbagger 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what a NOT category is, but "denying fact" is simply not what this category is (see the non-trivial list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). It's also worth noting that skepticism and denial are not the same. If we allow Category:Global warming skeptics to list notable people who are skeptical, why not allow an analogous category for users? This category is easily encyclopedic as there are many articles that the skeptics could collaborate on (the one listed above, and the pages of leading skeptics like Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov). Also, I've used this category to get help in talks/discussions trying to keep Global Warming and related articles non-POV, because the skeptics tend to get railroaded in those discussions. Oren0 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not use Wikilawyering and WP:ILIKEIT to foster your arguments.--WaltCip 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how my post was Wikilawyering. I wasn't attempting to use WP:ILIKEIT, but rather to demonstrate that there is an excyclopedic use for this category, to refute those above that said it is unencyclopedic. Oren0 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oren0's reasons. It seems to be used as a tool for POV-pushing. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Man-made Global Warming is not universally accepted as fact. If you desire to understand Global Warming skepticism better, the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle puts out the Global Warming skeptic point of view about as well as An Inconvenient Truth puts out the mainstream view. If there is a category for Wikipedians who support changing the flag of New Zealand, there definitely should be a category for man-made Global Warming skeptics. If you're in an editing dispute with somebody over a Global Warming article, wouldn't you want to know if that person were a man-made Global Warming skeptic so you could understand where they were coming from? If this category were to be deleted, you'd probably have to delete alot of similar categories relating to political beliefs of Wikipedians. This category isn't used for POV-pushing anymore than all the other similar categories. Life, Liberty, Property 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LLP. I was somewhat unsure about this, but the idea that you need to categorise people in order to understand their edits is a very bad one (nb: LLP is one of those canvassed by OrenO [1]) William M. Connolley 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note canvassing by OrenO, BTW [2] and [3] William M. Connolley 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at who replied 7mn after OrenO on my talk page. Interesting Timing (UTC).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talk • contribs). (yes, all of the indented text). It must be a kind of twisted joke, William has about 1000 more edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR than Zeeboid has in total. --Stephan Schulz 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. Though as stated above, this is not a vote, however if we're all voting, then I say that the skeptics shouldn't be silenced like the Church of Global Warming here would like to have done.--Zeeboid 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Life, Liberty, Property express it well, this is not for people who deny global warming exists or who are expressing hate for those who believe that humans are the major cause of global warming. This is for people who are not convinced that the mainstream view is correct. Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (note I have not been canvassed, I spotted this on my watchlist). Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, but it's still a POV category.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Users are allowed a POV, as long as they work with others so that the articles are NPOV this is not a problem. We have Category:Wikipedians by political organization which is full of categories that express a POV - judging by their number and size of some of them there must be consensus that these are acceptable. When users express that they hold a POV it helps maintain neutrality by being able to find people with other view points to offer balance and alternative perspectives. Thryduulf 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect argument, for those who would deny the process of anthropogenic global warming would not be interested in the subject, out of apathy.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Walt, I am still pro-deletion but I think some of your arguments are becoming too un-Wikipedian, you can't know whether anthropogenic warming "skeptics" would be apathetic. There is also a difference between deniers and skeptics. Let's try and stick to the fundamentals of the argument for deletion of the category and not the relative merits of the climate change debate. Barfbagger 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sir, skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is necessarily an interest in the topic. This is beyond obvious. —ptk✰fgs 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there are many people who are sceptical about the subject, and its a valid category following all the usual rules, the thing should really be kept. Amongst other things, it can be used as a sort of Declaration of Personal Interests when an editor makes an odd edit to pages on Global Warming, make sure theres no question of unbalance. Therefore, i suggest the category is Strongly Kept As Is without major changes. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to 'interested in' no POV groupings on wikipedia.--Docga pox on the boxes 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's wrong with canvassing? People who are in this category deserve to know that it's up for deletion so they can express their opinions as to its merit. I didn't ask anyone to voice any particular opinion, I was just noting the fact that it's up for deletion. Oren0 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential meatpuppetry.--WaltCip 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but none of these people are puppets as far as I know, and I don't understand why you and William M. Connolley are making such a big deal out of it. Oren0 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously less contentious than a lot of other categories on Wikipedia. I don't see any rules being broken here. Carry on. ~ UBeR 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, not because it's a "not" category, but because it serves no useful purpose in building an encyclopedia and could easily be abused. --Tony Sidaway 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mind elaborating? Why is grouping people who are interested in global warming skepticism unencyclopedic? We do that with Wikiprojects all the time; it helps build collaboration. How do you foresee this being abused? Oren0 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think that the point that this is not a valid category is probably technically correct. It might be appropriate to replace it (and similar invalid "wikipedians who..." categories) with a userbox that says the same, with an integral link to "what links here" to that userbox to get a list... --Athol Mullen 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's pertinent on subject pages for the scientists, who are being cited as authorities. It isn't here, because we do not edit as authorities. it encourages eds. to think in stereotyped ways, and promotes canvassing. Anyway, its easy enough to tell from any of the talk pages. DGG 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not edit as authorities, true, which is why this category is completely separate from categories of articles about people who are authorities. I fail to see how including yourself in a category encourages you to edit in a stereotypical way. Additionally all user categories can be used for canvassing, as can membership lists on WikiProjects, as can contribution histories. Should we delete all these because they might be used for canvassing? Thryduulf 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if knowing an editor's opinion on global warming isn't helpful for most purposes, it effectively serves to identify and segment him in certain ways familiar with the debate. Also good for keeping an eye out on possible ideologically motivated edits (e.g.: a user with this on his userpage and 3 contribs, one of which is placing himself in this cat., adds eight paragraphs from a Steven Milloy article to global warming. Instead of just wordlessly reverting or giving a boilerplate WP:NOT lecture, more savvy editors can preemptively let the skeptic know why excessively tendentious edits are usually frowned on.) --zenohockey 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also remember that Wikipedia is not a blog, per WP:NOT. We must try to maintain an NPOV. Seeing editors using the category as a crutch for their weasel-worded edits to scientific topics is the very reason why the category should be deleted.--WaltCip 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really don't see the harm in having such a category, especially given the abundance of other categories as varied as "Wikipedians who love cats" and "Wikipedians who play sudoku" (to cite a couple of examples that appear on my own user page). It all seems very harmless, and the remark at the top where the deletion is recommended--"Why deny fact, anyway?"--hints that the recommendation is motivated by disagreement with the position and perhaps a desire to suppress it or at least devalue it as irrelevant (much in the vein of people like Ellen Goodman linking global warming skeptics with "Holocaust deniers"--see Politics of global warming for the quote). I hope that was not the intention, but that remark about "fact" sure comes across that way. --MollyTheCat 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm in having it. I find it helps me identify users with what I believe are scientific and honest intentions. Prester John 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...This category is the result of User boxes and is as "encyclopedic" as the other Categories based on User boxes. And it is plainly obvious the the ad hominem attack on Oren0 by falsely claiming Canvassing is baseless on 2 points. 1: The list of people Oren0 notified of this deletion request were obviously taken from the list of people in the category. 2: The so-called "canvassing" consisted of the following text, "If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here." What the people claiming "Canvassing" has occurred intentionally ignore is the following, "reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Certainly the abject nature they so quickly claim "Canvassing" (which, btw, they do constantly as well) should be balanced and warrant dismissing the claims as what they are: worthless hot-air. I guess that could be considered anthropogenic contributions to global warming.  :) -- Tony G 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I looked back at the edit history and found that WaltCip created this CFD and also voted Delete. Here's the proof; Isn't this bad form or something similar? Life, Liberty, Property 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is proper form for the nominator to clearly state his position. See the process info at WP:CFD. –Pomte 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me make my point very clearly for those who do not see it:
  • 1 - I am deleting the category because it is a "NOT" category.
  • 2 - I am deleting the category based on the premise that little collaborative value can come from it, other than divisive politicism and biased editing.
  • 3 - Gladly, I would delete the other political categories as well, but I am starting with this as it is the most volatile (and I do believe that it's "denying fact", but that's an entirely different bag of chips).
  • 4 - So far, the majority of arguments I have seen are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:USEFUL, WP:HARMLESS, and other variants.
  • 5 - If people wish to "state their opinion", the userbox very well serves that purpose.
  • Let these points be known by the deleting admin.--WaltCip 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that the majority of the delete arguments are WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JUSTAPOLICY, or WP:PERNOM. And for the record, I don't see why global warming skepticism is a "NOT" category any more than, say, Category:Anarchist Wikipedians or Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians (unless you'd call these "NOT" categories as well, but I wouldn't). This category isn't about not supporting global warming, it's about skepticism. Being a global warming skeptic is not an unreasonable position, and, as I've noted above, this category can help increase collaboration. Oren0 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add that one of the pro-deletion arguments is that being a Global Warming skeptic is "denying fact," which is a blatantly pov statement. That is definitely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is another argument not to use. Life, Liberty, Property 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 28 edit

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in film edit

As you can see, this category needs an overhaul. I have proposed we delete categories that are based on a single film, as categories used to collaborate on one (or very few) pages are not helpful enough to justify their existance, and if we allowed that we would allow a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles. I have also proposed a rename for each category I don't think is too narrow for collaborative purposes, in order for them to have more encyclopedic names. "Who likes" does not really imply that someone wants to collaborate on the articles, "interested" is much better in that regard, and I think we should try to convert all other "who likes" categories to "interested" in the future. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - either for whether they should be deleted, or whether renamed to "interested in". - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least 3 - There are a number of Phantom of the Opera, {{High School Musical}} and {{Blade Runner}} articles. These can be renamed to clarify that the users are interested in the series in general, but that is implied. Also, I reject the collaboration argument because there's a sense that it is irrelevant at WT:UCFD. –Pomte 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Else this category would eventually encompass every movie ever made. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but keep 3 maybe 4 as above. I agree we can't have such a category for every film, book, Star Wars character, etc., etc., etc. The three exceptions noted probably have enough activity to justify categories like this, as might Rocky Horror. At some point precendent needs to evolve as to what does or doesn't have such a level of activity. Maybe this will be a start. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rocky Horror -- it has its own category with multiple pages, and its fandom reaches far beyond the average concept of liking a movie. I'd be inclined to keep the Phantom and Blade Runner ones as well, for similar reasons, though those are more limited topics. I'm neutral on the others... I can see that all of them have more of a fanbase than the average movie, but also that we shouldn't have a category for fans of every movie ever. Pinball22 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have a problem with keeping the 3 or 4 mentioned that have been shown to have a number of articles people could contribute on, but I do think they need renames to signify this. VegaDark 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Individual fims which have sequels edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Books and films edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename per nom - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself. And in some of the cases above, the books are more famous, or at least equally as famous as the film. Then there are other marketing tie ins, such as toys, comic books, and so on. All of which have the potential for articles. (Imagine: Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse.) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I don't see how my proposed renames would affect that? I specifically didn't add films at the end of the name because of this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I was supporting not adding something like "films and media" or whatever, while still opposing "interested in". - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for reasons already given above. I do imagine Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse, and that simply makes me support the rename even more. Its the only practical solution. We can't plausibly have an endless proliferation of categories like "who like Mickey Mouse T-shirts", "who like Mickey Mouse watches", "who like Mickey Mouse plush toys", etc., etc., etc. Mickey Mouse-related collaboration needs to be centralized. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and adjust or create other categories as suggested. DGG 07:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. icewedge 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Films by film series edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in the Ghostbusters series if for more than the movies (i.e. comics, etc.); otherwise "the Ghostbusters films"; no need for both. Rename Matrix one as nominated, since Animatrix isn't really a film but a collection of animated shorts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Monty python films edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). Weakly opposing the addition of "films and media". By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself (see Star Wars above). But in this case, consider that this category has the related idea that it's like Wikipedians who like the Muppets. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "interested in" as a worse, impersonal, generic, ambiguous name. I am very interested in Monty Python films for some convoluted personal reasons but I haven't seen any in full and so I don't know anything about them to contribute significantly to their articles. To like something, you at least should know some substantial information about it. Those who dislike them are also interested, but are less likely to contribute in a well manner. As long as we have user categories, which do not facilitate collaboration but rather build a sense of community, there is nothing wrong with grouping those who like a certain thing that is unlikely to cause conflict. –Pomte 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we presume that these comments refer to all the film discussions above in regards to the "inetrested in" renames? - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. –Pomte 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "interested in Monty Python" - don't include "films" if not limited to films. NB: The fact that it is impersonal and "generic" is much of the entire point. It isn't "ambiguous" at all if the confusing "films" is dropped. Agree with Jc37 that "films and media" isn't very useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Films by director edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename per nom. - jc37 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? How is "Wikipedians who like" better than "Wikipedians interested in" in terms of encyclopedic use? I like thousands of things, but I am not interested in collaborating on all of them. Naming categories as "who like" invites people to join the category for the sake of being in the category, not for collaboration, and I do believe all need to be changed from this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you do, and it's a point that you and I disagree on. As I've mentioned elsewhere (including the talk page) I think that the user categories are useful for more than direct collaborative use. I could mention a recent quote from User:Jimbo Wales, which states something similar, but considering how his quotes were (in my opinion) taken out of context in userbox discussions, I'll avoid quoting him now. (Besides, as he often states, in cases such as these, he prefers to be "just another editor".) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: All this "like" business is nonencyclopedic fannish silliness and has nothing to do with buiding an encyclopedia. The rename will be less divisive and PoV, and won't lead to the creation "not" categories in response. The rename does not harm the application of such categories "for more than direct collaborative use". And yes, do avoid quoting Jimbo unless you can demonstrate that he is speaking in his official role, which in that case he was not (in contrast with Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Life path edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - author (below) - jc37 12:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a user category, and no encyclopedic benefit that I can think of to search for users in such a category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't need a category to track users who use a certain template on their user page. –Pomte 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting template, not-so-useful category. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created the template quite some time ago, but I now see that the category is useless indeed. --giandrea   12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1stian Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete

No article on 1stian, and therefore no indication that categorizing by this could help facilitate collaboration in any way. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Insert here some joke about 42, 47, or any other pop cultural number.) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AOL users edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL - jc37 09:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an indication that it is a user category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anonymous Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was Keep - jc37 08:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't possibly categorize all IP address contributors, and even if we could, why? VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for those who make significant contributions from one IP. Why not? This is more interesting to browse through than most if not all other categories. –Pomte 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - There are Wikipedians who choose to edit from IP alone. Perhaps the category introduction should be clarified. (Perhaps select some arbitrary minimum number of edits for inclusion?) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jc37 and Pomte. bibliomaniac15 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i thought otherwise, but Pomte is right. Presumably those who dont do it often won't put up a box. DGG 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a near-canon user category and not currently over-populated. Christopher Connor 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Intended for serious IP address contributors, as opposed to casual drive-bys. Very useful to show that yes, there are such things as serious IP address contributors, which is a perennial question that keeps coming up. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is the case then the title should be more clear. I can just see someone going through and adding all anon contributors to this category. Perhaps Category:Anonymous Wikipedians who significantly contribute? And then in the category description it can specify the requirements to be in the category (100 or more non-vandalism mainspace edits?). VegaDark 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 27 edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment and all subcategories edit

12 categories are not needed for the potential to collaborate on a single article. All of these need to be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, or deleted. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone introduced to the alignment concept can then have an alignment. It's trivial. –Pomte 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Animal wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for Wikipedians to ever go searching through this category for any reason that could help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ask them if they want to be in Category:Furry Wikipedians (doubt it). –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I'm not really sure if there's anything else that needs to be said. The category only contains two users, as well. --Coredesat 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - seems to just be a variation on Category:Furry Wikipedians, but not sure, since it's so vague (which is another reason to delete...) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there an otherkin Wikipedians category or something of the sort? I didn't see one in a brief search. Though, looking at the pages of the two users in this category, I'm not sure whether they'd want to be there if there were. Pinball22 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian fans of Obi-Wan Kenobi edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Wikipedians who like Star Wars. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've merged this to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars instead, as Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars has been renamed to this above. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific for collaboration. There are thousands of Star Wars characters, we don't need to have a category for each one. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who watch LazyTown edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like LazyTown - per author (below). Feel free to renominate for deletion, if wanted. - jc37 12:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like LazyTown per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in television (although I believe this naming convention needs to change to "interested in" in the future). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename convention. –Pomte 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Sorry, I didn't know about the convention when I made it. My bad. D4g0thur 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Beyond Good & Evil categories edit

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

The result of the debate was delete - both have become empty since this was nominated, so there is nothing left to upmerge. VegaDark 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No articles on IRIS Network or Alpha section. Looks to be factions in the video game Beyond Good & Evil. No reason to categorize past the parent category, as it would be far too specific and would not facilitate collaboration further. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users with OTRS access edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - No need for the speedy rename if deleted. Considering the new policy concerning those with such access, it's probably a better idea to delete this single user category, with no prejudice for it being recreated (with the rename suggestion) if deemed appropriate. - jc37 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians with OTRS access. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The category needs to be populated; see list at m:OTRS. –Pomte 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Users to Wikipedians. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally I'd like this deleted. OTRS people should try to keep it under their hat. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I'd prefer not to be listed in too many places. --Kim Bruning 03:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering about this as well. - jc37 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, probably don't delete. I believe we keep lists of everyone else with special access types, so I don't see the point of deletion here. It's voluntary to use the category anyway. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Fast Food edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - No consensus to Rename. Feel free to create Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food restaurants. - jc37 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who "likes fast food"? Knowing who enjoys the tase of a particular type of food is not something we need to categorize. At minimum needs a rename to be more encyclopedic, and for proper capitalization. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food topics if no consensus to delete, as nominator ("Interested in fast food", by itself, still seems unencyclopedic. Adding "topics" at the end implies more than just the food, such as restaraunts, health issues, etc.). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename looks like a very good idea, reinforcing writing of encyclopedic articles - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is automatically generated from the UBX's and we don't want to have to have non-existent categories on userpages. --98E 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not rename, because there is no evidence that the members of the category are interested in fast food topics. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have a fast food UBX on their page then there IS proof. --98E 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little collaborative potential. Xiner (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per David Gerard. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not rename. The intent of "interested in" in this case is in consumption, not collaboration : ) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per David Gerard. That way we end up getting stuck with a non-beneficial no consensus result.--WaltCip 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename- looks useful, but the name looks a little dodgy. Best to keep it and rename it. Eaomatrix 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. VegaDark 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga to Category:Wikipedians in Chattanooga, Tennessee Speedy Rename as nom, per "Wikipedians in X" standardized format (G6 also I believe). -- Huntster T • @ • C 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename, but I'll wait for a second admin to verify as its technically not a speedy criteria. VegaDark 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was originally placed over at WP:CFDS under criteria 4. Perhaps that would appropriate justification here as well. Fits the same formula. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy it; I think an upmerge would've been appropriate also. Xiner (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 24 edit

Category:Wikipedians who have written an AP Exam edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the userbox this category is associated with, it is for people who have taken the exam, not written it, in which case it has no encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot of articles in Category:Advanced Placement for them to write on after becoming familiar with the exams. –Pomte 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people took AP exams in high school, myself included. I think it is an large logical leap to conculde that people who took AP exams would somehow be more interested in collaborating on anything in that category, and writing based on one's personal experience taking exams would be original research. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is highly unlikely that the users will collaborate on these articles. –Pomte 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In British English, this name refers to those who have taken the (American) exam. Confusing. Xiner (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians who Support/Oppose X to Wikipedians interested in X 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 Group-Nominate Category:Wikipedians by politics and its sub-categories for discussion, else feel free to continue this discussion on the talk page. - jc37 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See previous UCFD discussions here and here (the first one) on the subject.

There was a strong consensus in these previous discussions that these categories are unencyclopedic and should be merged/renamed to Wikipedians interested in X. The logic was that the "interested in" categories could promote collaboration, whereas support/opponse ones are inflammatory and without purpose. There are tons of these at Category:Wikipedians by politics. Oren0 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom and reasons for it. Somehow, though, I'm not sure some of the members would be happy with it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I'd like to see every category that would be affected for the chance that some exceptions may be necessary (although I can't think of any offhand). VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This may or may not be more complex than it may appear. But sidestepping that for the moment, I would like this to be a more specific nomination, than just a vague suggestion of what categories are included. Are we discussing any category which someone somewhere thinks is such a cat? Or just all the cats under Category:Wikipedians by politics? I think for now, we should just start with the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by politics. And, since this has been so controversial in the past, they should each be tagged. As an aside, I wish that this nomination would have waited until a much more inclusive discussion could have been nominated (see the talk page to get a hint of what I mean), but I suppose that's moot atm. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I brought this up improperly. The consensuses at both discussions linked were nearly unanimous and the admins at deletion review told me to bring this up as a bulk nomination here. Oren0 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Based on that explanation, I believe that what they were likely suggesting, is to do a "mass-nom" (also known as a group nom). That means to do what you did above, but every category that you wish to have changed (renamed, deleted, merged, etc), needs to be tagged with a banner - such as {{cfd-user}} - to notify all those interested in a discussion about them and then a link to those categories listed with your nomination. Hope this helps. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

High school categories 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 Merge all to Category:Wikipedian high school students. - jc37 09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No benefit to Wikipedia from categorizing users this specifically that I can think of. Seems like overcatigorization, and I think all should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedian high school students. Also I should add that there have previously been concerns on having categories specifically for minors, and everyone not a senior generally are. Merging would hopefully avoid this issue alltogether. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator's above arguments. Colonel Tom 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.Barfbagger 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any and all high school student categories, merge if no consensus to delete. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please link any previous consensus on deleting categories for minors. I only know of WP:KIDS which didn't have consensus. –Pomte 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never did I state there was a consensus to delete such categories, I simply stated there were concerns on having such categories. In either case, I stand by my first point as the primary reason to merge these categories, I was simply mentioning the second point for an added incentive. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. We're not government. High school students have a right to be responsible for themselves - if they have an account, they exist, and therefore have an age - QED. By not giving them a category, we risk ad hominem.--WaltCip 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Commons users 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 Merge to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons - jc37 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and should be merged there. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bryce users edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce - jc37 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by software. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who have the Ben Bulben award edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - db-author (below) - jc37 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ben Bulben award is an unofficial Wikipedia award, apparently only awarded to users for working on the Ben Bulben article. Categories by official Wikipedia award is one thing, but categories for unofficial awards can be potentially endless, depending on how many made up awards users create. At minimum needs a rename to conform with naming conventions in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia award. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The box may be fine, but no need for the category. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm starting to be swayed that perhaps User:VegaDark's ratio of user category:article being 1:1 should equal deletion, may be the way to go. - jc37 08:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay. I agree. It's pointless and shoul be deleted. -Billy227 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete per consensus, and apparently author (below). - jc37 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category. "This user potato skins". Wha? Is this supposed to mean "This user skins potatos? Either way, unencyclopedic category, and needs a rename at the very least. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potato skins, and presumably Tato Skins, also (your guess is as good as mine). I am a little confused by the recent application of "unencyclopedic" to user categories – it's a bit like calling user pages "unenyclopedic", and you might as well delete all of them in that case. It does seem to have no useful purpose. Furthermore, it is only used on one page, which is generally a better indicator of a category's usefulness than an arbitrary "encyclopedicness" standard – Gurch 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my userbox, when you place an emotion in the piped part of the userbox transclusion, it forwards it into the userbox, so if I put {{User:Rugby471/Userboxes/potatoes|hate}}, it would give you
 This user hate potato skins

. This is not a nosence category, and if you delete it why are you not deleting the other hunderds of userboxes? Rugby471 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could, I would... – Gurch 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a strong supporter of userboxes in general, I think I can get away with saying that you just made me make a spit take of laughter. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the red box at the top of the page. Your userbox will be kept, this discussion is only regarding the category. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is overcategorization. This usercat is obviously for people interested in potatoes, and should say so. Xiner (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Not" categories are not useful and too general. However, I agree that "unencyclopedic" is not an argument for deletion of user categories. Despite what VD says. Barfbagger 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why delete any user category that doesn't fall afoul of some other policy. They're not hurting anything, and deleting them is alienating people. Very, very few user categories aid in collaboration, so this mania for deleting some unencyclopedic categories and not others is just an abritrary way to upset contributors. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per agreeing with previous discussions: in the case of food categories, the userbox is enough. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I only realised that just now ... Rugby471 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per VegaDark, nonsense category.Tellyaddict 12:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Myself Wikipedian edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per author. - jc37 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? No explaination as to what this category is even for, and the name doesn't make sense. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See {{User:Steinninn/myself}}; useless self-reference. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I know that this isn't a reason for deletion per se, but it should be said sometimes; this category is not contributing to building a better encyclopedia. Colonel Tom 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete beeing the one that created this user category I have no problem with someone deleting it. --Steinninn 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians formerly in Munich edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many cities are there in the world? That would be the answer as to how many categories we would allow to be created if this were kept. I don't want to see a "formerly in" category for countries, let alone cities. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Munich. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is similar to usercats that say a user's been to a certain U.S. state. Who cares? Xiner (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If they come from Munich fine then say so. If I listed all the cities I was formerly in it would require an almost immediate archival.Barfbagger 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The suggested rename may leave us in a situation where Wikipedians are inappropriately categorised. It is better to delete than to rename and thereby foster inaccuracy. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A delete is fine by me. VegaDark 09:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are one of an infinite number of monkeys edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - per author. - jc37 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny userbox, but the category is not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. There would be no reason to go through this category looking for users that I can think of. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator of the category. If humorous categories aren't generally approved of then i don't mind if we get rid of it, its only me and a random sockpuppet who are actually in the category at the moment anyway. Orgone 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nice joke (is there a userbox for it?) but no category needed. Barfbagger 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome! SchmuckyTheCat 01:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who survived Hurricane Katrina edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want a "who survived" category for every disaster, natural or otherwise? Furthermore, this is an all-inclusive category, as almost the entire population of Earth survived Hurricane Katrina (the category doesn't specify you had to be at risk in order to be in the category). VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I survived Katrina, safe in Australia. I've also survived every other natural disaster since my birth, as have you, gentle reader. Not a useful category. Colonel Tom 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually, I made the category for those in New Orleans who have been hit bad. I should have been more specific. |: --Xxhopingtearsxx 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously intended for those in the area, possible renaming might be nice. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all-inclusive. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the intended scope is pretty obvious, and don't see anyone categorizing themselves under it just for spite and semantics. There are a lot of articles and images in Category:Hurricane Katrina to collaborate on. On the other hand, "Wikipedians interested in Hurricane Katrina" would be all-inclusive as it received such massive coverage. Other major disasters can have similar categories, why not? –Pomte 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep it as a userbox; it'd achieve the same purpose. I will say that the name is not confusing - it's understood what "survived" means here. Xiner (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, contains only one user and this really isn't necessary. A non-categorizing userbox would suffice. --Coredesat 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it is a relatively current event, there really isn't any need for this category, where a userbox would serve a better purpose. The scope is too ambiguous.--WaltCip 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially an all-inclusive category. Userbox is enough. —ptk✰fgs 02:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who read Milenio Diario on a regular basis edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario - jc37 09:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs "Wikipedians" instead of "Users", also "on a regular basis" is unnecessary. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • User category standard. All categories are named in the same purpose to main consistency and organization throughout the entire encyclopedia.--WaltCip 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, all categories with "Users" in it has been renamed to "Wikipedians", except for babel categories. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have been hacked on Habbo Hotel edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion a while back, seen here, but the category became empty during the nomination and was speedy deleted as such. Now it has been recreated, and this isn't technically speedyable since you are only supposed to delete things as a recreation if it still meets the reasons of why it was originally deleted, which this does not since it is not empty. If an admin wants to speedy this since it looks like there would have been a consensus to delete on the original nom, that is fine with me. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too specific; makes susceptible users easy to identify. –Pomte 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Barfbagger 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as categorising Wikipedians by having had an account "somewhere" hacked would seem to be a bad idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User uz-0 edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category, which have all been deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? i made it 'cause i was born in uzbekistan, so some of my friends could think i know Uzbek Stas 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The userbox is effective in communicating this, which will be kept. Nobody would go looking through a category to find people who don't speak Uzbek, and hence a category is unnecessary, as determined previously for 0-level categories. VegaDark 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - We previously agreed that it should take at least two admins agreeing for speedying due to convention. Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian /b/tards edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - The author apparently also requested the userbox be deleted [4]. - jc37 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Looks like a subsection of 4chan, no need to categorize past parent category. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who use 4chan. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • /u/pmerge per nom. –Pomte 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category was created as a subsection because the /b/ board is...erm, a little different when compared to the rest of 4chan, and I felt it needed distinguishing from the rest. Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1453 (UTC)
  • Typical /b/ elitist attitude. /po/ and /ck/ and /y/ are more different in a way, and they can't all have subcategories. Although /b/ may be relevant to more people's interests than the others, it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. –Pomte 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me; I'm an elitist /b/astard with no other agenda than to promote /b/ and scour all mention of any other board from the Interwob.
However, because this is not the place for drama, and you're obviously entrenched in your opinion anyway, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)
  • It also appears there was an AfD on /b/tards, resulting in redirecting it to 4chan. We don't need a category if there is no article on /b/tards. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, although the section in the 4chan article is rather sparse at the moment. Someone would, if they had a mind to, use the user category for improving it (although that may fall under WP:CRYSTAL—I'm not entirely sure). Blast [improve me] 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)
  • Delete - categorising by sub-message board? Another not-so-good idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rule #1 & #2 Aranth 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "rules" are you referring to? - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by former religion edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - While each had individual consensus for deletion, some comments in each applied just as well to the other categories, so closing all together. - jc37 09:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by former religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete as per below ("not" category"). Both categories created by Andries (talk · contribs). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per below. Andries 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I support VegaDark's mass-rename proposal, but think it should be done for all usercats at the same time. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concede that "former <religion>" may be useful for collaboration, however, so would former residents of some location or former fans of some sports team. I don't think any of these is a good idea to begin categorising by. We would duplicate every sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians. (Formerly interested in television, formerly a cyclist, etc.) I strongly oppose the mass rename suggestion to "interested in". - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians who used to be Catholics edit
Category:Wikipedians who used to be Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. We do not need such categories ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per below. Andries 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't a "not" usercat. Everyone is not a former Catholic. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another not category. Personally I don't believe anyone ever escapes anyway. Barfbagger 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the correct term is "recovering Catholic". This category is not divisive or harmful in any way, but its deletion is harmful. That the category is "non-collaborative" is a silly argument, because almost all user categories are non-collaborative. People don't use user categories to collaborate; we've developed a richly structured system of WikiProjects for that. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba edit
Category:Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Do not think these type of categories are needed. ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba and Category:Former_Scientologists, category:former Muslims exists too.
it is not a "not" category like category:atheist Wikipedians category:non-Catholic Wikipedians Wikipedians]] (not theist) but a "former" category. It cannot be fairly equated to a "not" category like category:Non-Catholic Wikipedians Andries 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No really. An atheist is not necessarily a person that once believed in God and now does not, rather, an Atheist is a person that does not believe in God. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree, bad example. Andries 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different, how? Are we know in the business of making assessments about different religions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's newer and devoted to a living person. Someone who has been a member might have a perspective on this guy that could either be useful or biased, which can matter on articles concerning him. No living Methodist could have known Wesley or the founders of the faith. Granted this could seem like cross-purposes on my placing Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba on CfD. However categories refer to articles, not editors, and are about how Wikipedians choose to identify them. So the potential for misuse is greater. Still maybe I was wrong and if a person wants to identify themselves as a former Methodist that should also be their right. (Although I think that's less useful)--T. Anthony 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ex-anythings are not notable. They should say what they are now if they need to express.Barfbagger 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pokémon Collaborative Project members edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename G6 - housekeeping. - jc37 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project members -> Category:WikiProject Pokémon members

Speedy Rename as nominator. The Project has changed its name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. --NThurston 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 23 edit

Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians. - jc37 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists to Category:Wikipedian pastafarians
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are referred to as Pastafarians, as per the article. CA387 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would just like to point out that, should there be a name change, "Pastafarian Wikipedians" would be a much more correct UC name change than "Wikipedian pastafarians".--Ramdrake 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It doesn't explain much about the context but then I suppose neither does the present name. I favour the change on grounds of simplicity. Sam Blacketer 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep current name as a redirect. As creator of the category, I am of two minds about it: while "Pastafarians" is indeed reported by several sources as being the correct term, I find it less descriptive than its alternatve. Maybe creating a redirect from one of those two names two the other so as to catch both alternatives would be best? I also just wanted to point out this is a user category, not a namespace category.--Ramdrake 12:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also concerned that leaving only the name "Pastafarians" may lead someone to think it's a typo and speedy-merge it with "Rastafarians"... Not good!--Ramdrake 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then should it not be Category:Wikipedian pastafarians? Sam Blacketer 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it's a user category, then yes. CA387 12:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by religion, and do not leave current name as a redirect, as current name has no indication it is a user category. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per VegaDark. --CA387 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we then have Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians as a redirect? I would like to ensure nobody mistakes "Pastafarians" for a misspelled "Rastafarians"--Ramdrake 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then simply make that clear in the category introduction. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User standards compliant edit

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

The result of the debate was delete, but allow for a properly named category that facilitates collaboration to be created in the future, if someone wishes to do so. VegaDark 04:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User standards compliant - If kept, it should have a rename to clarify intent. - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to ? - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are two things wrong with this category. The first is the name. It starts with "User", making it in the babel category system. This definitely does not need to be in this. Secondly, the category is for users who "believe in compliance with W3C standards". My question is, who cares? Believing that people should comply with W3C standards is not a defining characteristic of users, and we should not group such users together in a category, as it would be useless. What possible article could such users be expected to collaborate on? If kept, needs a rename, but there is no rename that would both be in the spirit of the category creation and be useful for collaboration. VegaDark 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? Shouldn't a lack of consensus over a long period of time default to keep? If not, relist yet again for continuity lest I copy and paste what I typed below in response to VegaDark. –Pomte 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not when a "no consensus" results in keeping a category which still obviously needs a rename at minimum, so I'd support relisting in such cases, or perhaps just being bold and changing it. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. No consensus = feel free to re-nominate. I just didn't want to relist again. Multiple relistings tend to lead to confusion. So instead I started semi-fresh with a renomination. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY 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 merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. VegaDark 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY - Renomination. While all relevant discussion is welcome, I'd like the question of whether WP:IAR should be invoked for the existance of this category being named in variation to the rest of the Category:Wikipedians by interest sub-cats. Note that the related article I love New York was boldly moved, and the resulting discussion for moving it back resulted in "No consensus", so it currently resides at I love New York. - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment for now, - in the hopes of fostering discussion : ) - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. I just realized we don't even need to categorize Wikipedians who "love" New York, under any name, so the naming discussion is moot (to me). What articles can we expect Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY to collaborate on that we wouldn't expect Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians interested in New York to collaborate on? I Love New York? I'd say each could be expected to collaborate on that, and even if not, one extra article is not enough to justify an entire subcategory. What added benefit would we have with this subcategory? None that I can see. VegaDark 07:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York per VegaDark because we're a dry conventional bunch. –Pomte 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL - speak for yourself : p - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The people want it. Those two at least. Why must we dictate to them? What policy reason, I ask you, is there to disturb this whimsical cat? -- Y not? 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. That heart character is also hideous. —ptk✰fgs 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm; no reason to not let people use it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Pomte. The heart symbol is nearly impossible to reproduce on a standard keyboard without copy-and-paste. Please disregard the WP:HARMLESS and the WP:ILIKEIT keeps.--WaltCip 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HARMLESS refers explicitly to articles. These user categories are not in the article space, not part of the encyclopedia, and are subject to entirely different standards. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... WP:HARMLESS? They have a shortcut for that? I am yearning for the days when most things were redlinked and the only shortcut anyone used in argument was WP:V -- Y not? 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Obvious duplicate. Xiner (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Duplication. Barfbagger 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No dictates. SchmuckyTheCat 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fwarn recipients edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fwarn recipients - Seems unnecessary, and I can't see how this makes anybody's job easier. I do a lot of vandalblocking, and I certainly never patrol this category. – Riana ऋ 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Have to agree with the nominator on this one. I don't see how the category could be of any use unless the category was automatically removed by a bot once 2 hours or so have passed, or once the user has been blocked. That way people could patrol the category for recent vandals who need to be blocked if they vandalize again. But, since that doesn't happen, this category is useless (and even if that did happen, the category would probably need a rename to be more clear). VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next, "Third-warning recipients"? Xiner (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 22 edit

Category:You forgot Poland edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:You forgot Poland - If anyone has more insight to this than "Huh?", please enlighten me : ) - jc37 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral due to being uninformed, mostly. - jc37 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke, serves no practical purpose. YechielMan 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first reaction on coming across a number of maintenance categories has been "Huh?"; my second has frequently been "It is not worth the trouble to CfD this, I'll just leave it be". My brief glances into Category:Wikipedians and its subcategories suggest many such categories also lurk there. This one seems to me to be causing no more of a disturbance than any of those – and much less than some. On the other hand, as YechielMan points out it serves no practical purpose – Gurch 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "Comment" in bold text was applied to my above comment, and I have removed it. While this is a wiki, I would appreciate it if my comments were not refactored in a way that obscures their meaning. If I post here, it means that I wish to engage in constructive discussion; my opinion cannot necessarily be distilled down to a single word in bold text at the beginning of the line. In this instance, the arbitrary labelling of my post as "Comment" is particularly misleading as it suggests I have no opinion on the continued existence of the category, and was merely supplying information. This is incorrect; the closest approximation to my opinion that could be achieved with the usual bolded wording is "weak keep", but I refuse to use such 'labels'. That way, I can rest assured that someone needing to know my opinion (such as a closing administrator) will have actually read my comment – Gurch 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, calm down : ) - You left off the leading asterisk, to begin with, and typically, unless responding to someone else's comments, nearly every comment leads with some variation on "support/oppose/comment". Rest assured that "comment" does not equal "Neutral". I do not just "count votes", and it's been my experience that the other regular closers here do not either. That said, there is no "mandate" to include support/comment/whatever, so feel free to decline. In any case, my apologies if my minor cleanup offended you : ) - jc37 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oop. I never intended this to be a serious thing, was only planning to pop it onto my userpage for a day or so, and then take it off. Didn't notice anybody had created a category page for it. Can't speak for the other category members, but I believe this has outlived the joke (and probably isn't worth any more attention, at that). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Luna Santin. Probably did outlive the joke...~ Giggy! Talk 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Funny, but the user category system is intended for serious use. VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? Would you care to explain the "serious use" of Category:Chaotic Good Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes, Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested, Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 5, Category:Wikipedians concerned about their weight, Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa, Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins ... I could go on all day – Gurch 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'd support deletion of all those categories (except possibly Wikipedians who have been arrested, as a category identifying users who have unique knowledge of the arrest process and could possibly collaborate on related articles). VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the erdros one resulted in a keep (though the higher numbers were at risk, at the time). Santa isn't a "joke" category. And ask User:Mike Selnker about the chaotic good one : ) - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is why I wasn't using those categories as an argument to keep this one. I was using those pages as an argument against VegaDark's claim that user categories are intended for serious use – Gurch 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - the burden of proof is on those who claim that user categories are helpful for collaboration, and that there's therefore a point in telling others what they can and can't do with them. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The harmless argument that you are providing in a variety of UCFDs is invalid, since it establishes precedence to create a wave of other redundant categories, which is not the purpose that UCFD serves.--WaltCip 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what purpose does UCFD serve? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorization of Wikipedians into categories where they can easily communicate and collaborate each other on a specific topic inside the article space. THIS category does not serve that purpose.--WaltCip 10:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence that user categories are used for collaboration? I ask because WikiProjects are certainly useful for collaboration, but I'm not at all convinced that user categories are. Membership in a project says something about what you do; membership in a category says something about what you feel you are. One is about working on the project; the other isn't. WikiProjects have a history of creating featured articles; user categories have a history of being abused for vote-stacking attempts.

    Because, as far as I can tell, user categories are not used for collaboration, then it makes no sense to make restrictions on user categories except to protect the project. Thus, blatantly divisive or offensive categories have to be removed, but deleting harmless ones is an arbitrary exercise of power that has no benefit to the project, and tends to alienate editors who like silly user categories. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One could in fact argue that silly user categories should be deleted precisely because they might attract people who intend to do little other than use silly user cateogries – in much the same way that userboxes and more recently "guestbooks" are frowned upon by many. While userpages get removed per "Wikipedia is not MySpace" every day, I don't see any evidence that user cateogries are contributing to the issue – unlike userboxes and guestbooks, which definitely do. That's not to say they aren't, of course, but if any are, I imagine it's more likely that they're well-used user categories that happen to be for irrelevant things, as opposed to these joke categories – Gurch 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User categories, not being very decorative-looking, contribute very little to the MySpace-ifying of Wikipedia. I don't see evidence that frivilous user categories attract MySpace-type behavior - I've seen plenty of evidence that userboxes do precisely that. Ideological user categories (as opposed to the harmless, silly ones) are a whole other kettle of fish - they contribute actively to the politicizing of Wikipedia, which is much worse than MySpacey behavior. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke template. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 21 edit

Category:Wikipedians who collect airsickness bags edit

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

The result of the debate was No consenses - jc37 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not aid in collaboration, and seems like a purely nonsense category. Blast [improve me] 21.04.07 0403 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. Blast [improve me] 21.04.07 0403 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Was planning on nominating this myself. No potential for collaboration by categorizing users into this category. VegaDark 06:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong keep. It's not a nonsense category, you would be surprised at the number of people who pursue this as a serious hobby and there are many websites devoted to it.[5],[6], [7],[8],[9],for just a few. However, it is debatable whether it is a category for collaboration. If there are acceptable categories for baseball or cigarette card collectors then it should be kept. Barfbagger 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed WP:BASH I think that some of the pro-deletion entries are relying too heavily on WP:ILIKEIT as justification. Barfbagger 10:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think the other "Wikipedians who collect" categories should be deleted as well. (there are only 4 or 5 other ones). And they should be converted to "interested in". In this case, however, I don't see how a category would help facilitate collaboration on more than a single article, so a category is not needed. VegaDark 07:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what would really facilitate collaboration? A relevant WikiProject. I'm waiting to see any evidence at all that any user category facilitates collaboration. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'd also support deleting other "Wikipedians who collect" categories. PeaceNT 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Delete per Barfbagger's reasoning, but also per VegaDark per VegaDark and WP:ILIKEIT votes.--WaltCip 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Barfbagger, you crack me up! YechielMan 06:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - And only because, amazingly enough, there are references for it, per Barfbagger. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not my cup of tea, but it is possible that this category could aid collaboration. I would argue against Category:Wikipedians who collect used airsickness bags, however. Colonel Tom 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're all behind you on that one.Barfbagger 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 20 edit

Category:Wikipedians who know that there IS NO EXIT edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - For those interested, see also: Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion. - jc37 07:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize users in to this category. Looks to have been created simply for the sake of associating it with the userbox. VegaDark 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't serve as a useful category.--WaltCip 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I object if there are ever more than three people in the category. SchmuckyTheCat 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense category. Naconkantari 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there is an exit. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does no harm, does no good, does not contribute positively. No reason to keep. Colonel Tom 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why keep any user categories that don't relate directly to collaboration? Once we're letting people play with user categories, what's the justification drawing any lines short of harm to the project? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'm not persuaded that user categories that don't assist collaboration are worthwhile. I do acknowledge, however, that some categories can make some kind of a positive contribution to, if you like, the spiritual wellbeing of wikipedians. How do I determine which categories do? I use my sometimes flawed, but always well-intentioned judgement, as I assume other editors do. If I didn't give some credence to the intangible benefits of some categories, I'd have suggested 'delete' for a lot more categories nominated on this page. This category doesn't meet my definition of a useful contribution, hence my suggesting 'delete'.Colonel Tom 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, if there are people wanting to use the category, which is admittedly not harmful, then what does it do to their spiritual well-being to be told, "no, you can't do that" based on someone else's well-intentioned judgment? That sounds like an active damage being done for no tangible benefit. I don't see the value in what appears to those affected as an arbitary exercise of power, making Wikipedia a less pleasant experience for them. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite a popular UCfD though. Xiner (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we expect to see alternating "Delete, no reason to keep" and "Keep, no reason to delete" comments on every discussion here from this point forward? If so, might I suggest that the two sides get in touch with each other beforehand and agree to mutually withhold an equal number of such comments? That way, the opinions of those who actually have a point to make will be clearer. Myself? Neutral, no reason to be otherwise, of course – Gurch 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is the problem. These decisions aren't being made according to any guideline or consensus gained after wide participation. It's just a bunch of people who say "I don't like it" and then delete what they don't like. It really doesn't matter what any persons individual opinion is, what matters are Wikipedia policies, and there simply aren't any about user categories that support these actions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who crack boiled eggs on the rounded end 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 Speedily deleted as intentional WP:POINT violation. Naconkantari 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Obviously not needed. No encyclopedic benefit to categorize users by this characteristic. Looks like it was created as a WP:POINT violation to me. VegaDark 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as nominator. VegaDark 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my category. You fail. This is a sub-category of Wikipedians by religion. Are you claiming my religion is invalid? (The state of Washington recognizes marriages I've performed as a religious leader, are you claiming Wikipedia know more about the validity of religion than a government entity who is required to make that distinction?) Or maybe I'm lying about what my religion is, are user categories required to be truthful? SchmuckyTheCat 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anymoreso than "IDONTLIKEIT" nominations? SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, user categories are required to be truthful, or at the very least, not patent nonsense. I can't believe that people are keeping this under the misguidance that it's "harmless."--WaltCip 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Is that any more nonsense than Wikipedians who believe in Santa?--Ramdrake 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • More so. DEFINITELY more so.--WaltCip 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you verify that user categories are truthful? Are you going to start asking everyone in Category:Jewish Wikipedians to prove it? How preposterous, it is impossible to verify truth in user categories. SchmuckyTheCat 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is obviously a reference to Gulliver's Travels but hardly a starting point for a collaboration. Barfbagger 06:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think, just because I can, I'm going to stay neutral on this one. I have to admit thought, I am having several fits of irony thinking about those who butter their bread the butter side down : ) - jc37 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POINT in practice.--WaltCip 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the harm of having user categories that show a little originality and humour, rather than being just drably descriptive? Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, but I see it as possibly counter-productive to remove everything (in this case categories) that show people actually have a sense of humour and like having fun while they're working on the project. Just my twopence' worth.--Ramdrake 12:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are organized projects of humor - see WP:RA. Go to those if you want to seek humor. Utterly unencyclopedic and random categories are deleted daily. In fact, unencyclopedic and random anything - see WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:AFD, WP:STFD, WP:MFD, etc - are deleted.--WaltCip 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add that there's no way to collaborate about a specific topic using this UC, which is what the system is supposed to provide.--WaltCip 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment You're making my point, actually, that we are lacking a place for humour and orginality in Wikipedia except in well-organized projects. Reminds me of the ST:Voyager episode where Seven of Nine had neatly organized one hour of "Fun" into the daily routine of ex-Borg children, oblivious to the fact that "fun" can hardly be planned. Here, if you must, may I then suggest we make a supercategory of Humorous Categories of Wikipedians and that this UC be moved to a subcategory of these? Or is it just that Wikpedia is too serious to entertain a degree of self-derision? Why must every category be utilitarian? I'd hate to think it was this bad.--Ramdrake 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a better proposal, if not a total sandbox.--WaltCip 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Ramdrake. Ex-Nintendo Employee 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - you can't have a WP:DISRUPT violation unless there's actual disruption going on. Milto LOL pia 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it does not aid in collaboration. This is an encyclopedia gosh darn it, not some coffee clutch. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helpful to the encyclopedia, and appears to be a WP:DISRUPT creation (the fact that the creator of the category declared that the nominator "fails" is all the evidence needed for that, really). --Coredesat 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 19 edit

Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux 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 Split into two categories. I did a fair amount of reading, both of the article and it's talk page, and several related pages. I also found it interesting that Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names specifically noted GNU/Linux naming controversy. The most important factor (to me) was that Linux is now apparently used on some handheld devices without GNU, and GNU exists on EMACS without Linux. So I'll create both:

Anyone in both can presume GNU/Linux, otherwise, this allows for choice. Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux will be depopulated and deleted, since there is no way that we can know which of the two new categories a specific Wikipedian wishes to be in, I'll leave it up to each Wikipedian. I'm also going to depopulate and delete the current Category:Wikipedians who use Linux (concerns about the copy/paste creation, among other things). I'm also going to remove the categories from existing userboxes, with a link to this discussion, and a note to add whichever of the two is appropriate. - jc37 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux.
  • "GNU/Linux" is a disputed alternate name for the operating system that was named Linux by the people who started the project. This category was originally merged from "Category:Linux users" and "Category:GNU/Linux users". The two should never have been merged under this title, which seems to endorse a particular side in this dispute. AlistairMcMillan 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AlistairMcMillan needs a history lesson: The GNU project was started in 1983. Linux is name for one kernel most frequently used by the GNU system and it's a popular moniker taken by distributions of this system. In any case, GNU was the name given to the GNU system by the people who started it. There are other GNU system variants such as NexentaOS which do not use the Linux kernel. NexentaOS is almost totally indistinguishable from an Ubuntu desktop, yet there is no Linux at all inside it. This is because the user experience is overwhelmingly driven by the GNU system, while the kernel plays a background role. Debian GNU/kfreebsd is likewise another functional GNU system which does not use Linux and yet works like a regular debian system. Yes there are arguments about using "Linux" as a short hand name of the system, but few informed people would argue that "GNU/Linux" is not a more accurate and complete name. The opposition is largely built around it being a mouthful, and somewhat confusing to new people.
    Naming argument aside, this category under the name "Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux" was used by many userboxes since their inception. AlistairMcMillian went around agressively changing these userboxes [10], long after the Category:Wikipedians who use Linux was deleted via CFD. --Gmaxwell 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The userboxes used this category because the others had been deleted. And the "Category:Wikipedians who use Linux" wasn't deleted via CFD, it was created as a redirect and then deleted for being empty after another user "aggressively" changed all the userboxes to point to "Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux".
    About the name: why do you keep referring to "NexentaOS" when the true name can only be "GNU/NexentaOS"? Linux is named after the guy who started it, Linus Torvalds. When asked whether the operating system should be referred to as "GNU/Linux" he said "calling Linux in general GNU/Linux I think is just ridiculous". See GNU/Linux naming controversy for more. AlistairMcMillan 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also when you say "the user experience is overwhelmingly driven by the GNU system", don't you mean the X Windows/Gnome/KDE system? I think they have quite a bit to do with the user experience being the user interfaces that most people interact with. Perhaps by your reasoning the category should be renamed "Category:Wikipedians who use X Windows/Gnome/KDE/Linux"? AlistairMcMillan 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? No, that's an utter non sequitur. Straw men aren't helping to prove your "point". Nobody calls it "X Windows/Gnome/KDE/Linux". --Cyde Weys 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, "GNU/Linux" is the correct name for the combination of GNU (the entire operating system minus the kernel) plus Linux (the kernel). You aren't going to get very far at all using just "Linux" without the rest of the operating system. Look around at all of the essential software on any modern Linux system; you'll find that most of it is GNU. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry what do you mean by "the entire operating system"? Is the XWindows software from the GNU project? Is Samba from the GNU project? How about Apache or Gnome or KDE or Firefox or a hundred other packages that are standard parts of the Linux? AlistairMcMillan 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what an operating system is? Everything you just mentioned are not part of the operating system. Apache is a webserver, Gnome/KDE are graphical windowing environments, and Firefox is a web browser. None are essential for getting the basic system working (and indeed, I'm running two GNU/Linux servers right now that lack everything you just mentioned except for Apache). --Cyde Weys 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's debatable what constitutes the operating system. I agree with Cyde here, except as far as I'm concerned, GNOME or KDE (or another similar desktop environment) are part of the operating system, as I wouldn't use a system that didn't have one. However, AlistairMcMillan is implying GNOME isn't part of GNU, but it is - see the GNOME 'about' page. Guyjohnston 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a simple fact that right now the GNU/Linux article is a redirect and the operating system article is titled Linux. Pretending there is no controversy surrounding the "GNU/Linux" name is just simply dishonest. I'm frankly stunned that established editors are suggesting that "GNU/Linux" is the definitive name. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename and don't merge. UCFD isn't the proper place to determine the proper name. Users who feel passionately about one name or the other can put themselves where they want to be. SchmuckyTheCat 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one category right now. I tried to separate into two, but Gmaxwell reverted. AlistairMcMillan 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suppose the one that is a redirect should be removed as a redirect so users can deal with it as their preference. SchmuckyTheCat 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. I agree that 'GNU/Linux' is the correct name for the whole operating system, and I use that name myself, but I think another category should be created for all the people who choose to call it 'Linux'. Guyjohnston 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any chance of building consensus around having both then? I would much prefer having both to renaming, but that option seems to be strongly opposed. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename - per GNU/Linux naming controversy. - jc37 07:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the article about the operating system is at Linux and GNU/Linux is a redirect. AlistairMcMillan 09:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (common name for the OS, and used by our article) or to something else, or split into several categories. "GNU/Linux" is a controversial minority point of view term, and usage of it should be avoided in a neutral encyclopedia. Prolog 12:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like hot food edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food - jc37 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic benefit, food category which we have historically deleted. VegaDark 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if all no encyclopedic benefit categories were to be deleted there would be very little left. Wikipedians who drive cars?, Wikipedians who are martial artists? Wikipedians interested in breweries? Barfbagger 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Food categories are deleted based on precedent. And strike the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS vote.--WaltCip 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the wishes of 550 users who've put themselves in it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Above user lists self in various other redundant and uninformative user categories, which should also be deleted per precedent.--WaltCip 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What does my user page have to do with ignoring the wishes of 550 other users? SchmuckyTheCat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Invalid keep reasoning. Every category brought to UCFD will have users in the category, or else it would have been speedyable. Furthermore, I'd bet 95+% of the users in the category are in it due to a userbox. VegaDark 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares how they got there? They chose to be there. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still invalid keep reasoning. Many categories before have been deleted that consisted of over thousands of users.--WaltCip 10:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are plenty of articles for these users to collaborate on. –Pomte 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "hot food" could mean spicy food or warm food, it is unclear. Either way, either of those would be too broad for collaboration IMO, and at minimum should be reworded. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all to know "who likes" certian food. VegaDark 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - I removed my original argument as un-Wikipedian. However, strike nom's orginal vote per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Agree that hot is ambiguous. Propose rename to Wkipedian's interested in spicy food. This goes beyond a mere single food type preference but covers a range that many users have an interest in.Barfbagger 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unencyclopedic" is a reasonable reason to delete a user category, as the main focus for user categories are to help build an encyclopedia. We don't need a user category to violate a policy to delete it, we just need it to not help Wikipedia to delete it. VegaDark 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to add, I'd consider your proposed Category:Wikipedians interested in spicy food infinitely better than the current name, however I still say delete as being too broad for collaboration. Also "spicy" is subjective, what is spicy to some may not be spicy to others. VegaDark 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is recommended that "Unencyclopedic" is not an argument to be used for justification. The subjectivity of "spicy" is immaterial as most definitions invloving human activity have a window of inclusiveness. As for the category being too broad this is also not an argument. People have general interests on a topic without having to narrowly define it and defining it too rigidly excludes many others. Admittedly some food topics are too narrow - individual foodstuffs or brands for example - but I contend that an interest in spicy food per se is sufficiently compartmentalised to warrant a category. Barfbagger 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Presumably an all-inclusive category. (Doesn't everyone cook their food? : ) - If kept, it needs a rename to clarify that "spicy" is meant. - jc37 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already proposed a rename. Barfbagger 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't support the idea of a rename : ) - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename if necessary to Wikipedians who like spicy food, although I find it already obvious that "hot" in this case does not refer to food temperature (never met yet someone who doesn't like a warm meal).--Ramdrake 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no potential for encyclopedic collaboration. Picaroon 03:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm; no reason to delete. User categories aren't used for encyclopedic collaboration anyway. That's what Wikiprojects are for. As far as I can tell, user categories are just for fun, so why tell people what they can and can't do unless they're being divisive/inflammatory. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, userbox syndrome, not conducive to collaboration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 17 edit

Category:Wikipedians of Greek ancestry edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, I recommend a group nom for all "ancestry" categories if nominated in the future. VegaDark 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with parent category, Category:Greek Wikipedians. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 05:18Z

  • Speedy Merge because of redundancy. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are several "ancestry" categories and the argument has previously been made that having Greek ancestry is not the same as being Greek. That being said, however, I don't see the benefit that any "ancestry" categories would provide and I would support deleting them all, reason being that just because someone is of a specific ancestry does not mean they can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to their ancestry. VegaDark 07:57, 12 April 2007
  • Comment - I disagree with this notion. Wikipedia is a place where any type of information can be found and if someone wants to find someone with Greek ancestry for any reason, Wiki should be the place they look. It is pointless to delete such a category.Knea2006 1:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep These users possess a sufficiently distinct attribute for them to hold a varying take on Greek-related articles. –Pomte 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because someone is of a particular ancestry does not imply that they would be more able to contribute to such articles, IMO. You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry. VegaDark 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Taking Exams edit

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

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active. VegaDark 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, their is no need for a separate category just for exams. TellyaddictTalk 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge As nominator.TellyaddictTalk 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it. The amount of time someone is inactive for due to taking an exam is so short that it isn't even worth the user adding themselves to this category. VegaDark 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Speak for yourself, almighty VegaDark. Some people spend weeks straight on exams, with exam periods every other month. –Pomte 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Tellyaddict and Pomte. bibliomaniac15 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This gives more specificity than the indefinite "not currently active". - jc37 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. Useless cat. AW 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Needless specifics. PeaceNT 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trekkie 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 Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek - jc37 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a Wikipedian category, so it needs a rename at minimum, but I don't see how it would be much different than the already existing Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek, so I'd say merge. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like the Mirror universe edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary overcategorization. Are we prepared to have a "who likes" category for every aspect of the Star Trek universe? VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek as nominator. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - This is a setting in several episodes of different series, and novels. It's a whole other universe, and not that far different than saying it's a mini-series within the Star Trek milieu. - jc37 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it's the setting for several episodes, but the same could be said for Kronos, Vulcan, Section 31, Bajor, etc. etc., and a category for each would be allowable if the criteria for a star trek category is "a setting in several episodes of different series, and novels". VegaDark 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, upmerge as overcategorisation. Especially if the categories for fans of each series merge as proposed below, this one would clearly have to go too; but even if not, the case for keeping it is too weak. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Unnecessary" is subjective. Users have decided they like this category by putting themselves in it. There's no reason to ignore that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "unnecessary" is subjective. That's why we are on UCFD to determine if there is a consensus that agrees with me. In either case, "People have put themselves in the category" is the worst UCFD reasoning I have seen to date. VegaDark 01:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "overcategorization" is a reason not to have mainspace categories. These are userspace categories. This discussion goes beyond any prescription in WP:USER to make any decision whatsoever. SchmuckyTheCat 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, the main star trek category proposed as a merge has more than 700 users, way too full. If anything this entire area is undercategorized. SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United Federation of Planets Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek - jc37 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of unnecessary overcategorization per above nom. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Even More W b W renaming (Minor cases) edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename per caps. - jc37 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case Issues

Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More W b W renaming edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (I changed "Wikiproject Hong Kong" to "WikiProject Hong Kong").--Mike Selinker 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following cases are the same as discussed in #W b W renaming below:

*Category:WikiProject Munich Members -> Category:WikiProject Munich members Speedy Merge as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw as cat has been deleted. --NThurston 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom for now, but hopefully we will come to a consensus on a new convention for these soon. VegaDark 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 16 edit

Category:Wikipedians who think América is a better team than yours edit

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Club América edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Merge per creator request. - jc37 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think América is a better team than yours
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Club América
The current convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams would seem to be "Wikipedian <team> fans", so Merge both to: Category:Wikipedian Club América fans. (Presuming the accurate name of the team is Club América.) Note: The first cat is currently a "redirect" (but not a category redirect) to the second cat. - jc37 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both as nominator. - jc37 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both as "creator" of the categories. I am sorry I didn't follow the guidelines, I am still learning. - Hari Seldon 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologise. You seem to have meant for the best. I'm just glad that you were spared Rouge admin interaction : ) - jc37 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian game programmers edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedian video game developers. This allows for the profession concerns, while removing the problematic word "programmer". - jc37 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedian game programmers to Category:Wikipedians interested in game development - All but one of the category's members is already in the latter category. I don't think that there is a need to make a distinction between the categories in this case. (See also the nomination to rename the latter cat below.) - jc37 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't the category last deleted for being too general? People who add themselves to this probably won't know it's meant only for professional programmers, which is hard enough to distinguish (do you have to work for a well-known programming company, can you start your own programming company, do you just need to get paid for programming for someone, etc). Game programming is a good enough distinction, I think, since there are people interested in it. –Pomte 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the last one was renamed to Category:Wikipedians by programming language (and depopulated) since that's what it essentially was last time. I think the category could exist as a "by profession" type category, though. Perhaps you are right that it would be too general, but I think "game" programmers could be too specific. Do we want a category for "accounting software" programmers? "word processing software" programmers? VegaDark 00:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the problem with that from a Wikipedia standpoint: It's all-inclusive. - Speaking as one who removed most if not all of the programmer categories from innumerable userboxes, one such was WikiText. Depending on how one defines it, even simply knowing to add the 4 tildes makes you a programmer. Not to mention all the wannabe xml, java script, and visual basic programmers out there. Unless we want to permantently watchdog the cat, we'll likely have confusion, disruption, and simply just upset people. I think we're better off not creating such a cat. - jc37 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's a good point, I was thinking more along the lines that the category would be used for people who program as their job. Too be honest I'm not sure what to do about this cat then, perhaps merging is a better option. VegaDark 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by Star Trek series edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename all per the adjusted nomination. - jc37 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Trek DS9 Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Rename Category:Trek ENT Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Enterprise
Rename Category:Trek NF Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Frontier
Rename Category:Trek TAS Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Animated Series
Rename Category:Trek TNG Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Next Generation
Rename Category:Trek TOS Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Original Series
Rename Category:Trek VOY Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Voyager
  • The categories are sufficiently populated for me to oppose upmerging. The parent is the least useful of the bunch due to its size, and could be downmerged if not for the fact that someone could like the entire series. –Pomte 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 15 edit

Category:Miscellaneous Wikipedian categories edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous Wikipedian categories - How is this different than Category:Wikipedians? - jc37 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians from the suburbs edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from the suburbs - a nice large sprawling vague category : ) - jc37 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unintentionally hilarious. –Pomte 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create subcategories I think maybe we should have different categories for different suburbs. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and explodify which isn't a real word but what I mean is I suggest splitting it up into many new categories. Well, if you think about it, this category could include over half a million wikipedians, if they all added this userbox. I mean, who is going to have time to read over half a million links? Therefore, it is rather meaningless, but if we at least divide it into many subcategories, it should correct this problem. So, I suggest deleting and/or splitting into subcategories, as this should be a better alternative. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play video games edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who play video games to Category:Wikipedians by video game, and depopulate. - jc37 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play video games to Category:Wikipedians by video game and depopulate as "all-inclusive". - jc37 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominator. - jc37 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "play" merger. --WaltCip 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and depopulate per nom. –Pomte 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and depopulate per nom. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom. bibliomaniac15 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in video games edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in game development edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in game development to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game development. - jc37 09:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in video games to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game development - (Rename withdrawn, depopulate as suggested below, instead.)
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in game development to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game development
  • Rename both as nominator. - The goal is to better clarify the purpose of each category. - jc37 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy oppose "interested" merger, The "interested" merge narrows down the category into a subcategory, which should be avoided. --WaltCip 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate the first and rename the second. "Interested in video games" is all-inclusive; the users in this category aren't necessarily interested in development, and there's already Category:Wikipedians interested in game development. –Pomte 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter should probably be merged (based on the intent of the populating userbox), since there is a difference between game development and video game development. Adding it to this nom. - jc37 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The intent is clear in User:Scepia/game dev, and you created the category 8 months later. I have updated my stance in bold. –Pomte 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm withdrawing the first rename. Several of the sub-cats (as you accurately noted) don't have anything to do with VG development. - jc37 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the second per nom, unsure about depopulating the first at this time. VegaDark 00:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Healthy Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in herbalism - jc37 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Healthy Wikipedians - "All-inclusive" category by its name. The introduction is rather vague, since it says: "Wikipedians who prefer natural health remedies to conventional methods, as well as other participants in the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board." - But the transcluding userbox says: "This user prefers to use herbal remedies." - This shouldn't be renamed, but deleted, due to it's confusing inclusion criteria. - jc37 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with a virus edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a virus - Too vague in naming, causing it to be all-inclusive. The intention of the category seems to be to be inclusive of those with Hepatitis-C and HIV-positive. (See also: Hepatitis C#Co-infection with HIV.) Hepatitus C is treatable, though with a possibly lengthy treatment duration (up to 48 weeks of treatment). Just as we shouldn't have Category:Wikipedians with tuberculosis (see Tuberculosis treatment), or even Category:Wikipedians with a broken leg (see Bone fracture), we probably shouldn't have a Hepatitus C cat either. - jc37 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • XFD is not a vote. Please provide reason for the keep.--WaltCip 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no no, that'd be Too Much Information! –Pomte 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by collaboration edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration - jc37 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians by collaboration to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration - More accurate and precise. - jc37 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominator. - jc37 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose implied; overcomplication. –Pomte 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided on this for now, but if it should be renamed I think Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration is a little better than the nomination's proposed rename. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! : ) - Changing Wikipedian to Wikipedia per your suggestion. - jc37 08:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per (modified) nom. After looking through the subcategories I think the rename would be somewhat beneficial. "By collaboration" by itself doesn't necessarily imply Wikipedia colalboration. Someone may think the category is for categories of what Wikipedians are collaborating on in real life. VegaDark 00:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use dual monitor configurations edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use dual monitor configurations - I think this falls under Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Note: This category had hundreds of members. I was bold, and removed it from the associated userbox, and that left 4 members. - jc37 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Perhaps the dual monitors make editing more efficient, but that'd be another cat. –Pomte 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Google edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Google. Userhood is of no encyclopedic value. See numerous discussions below. Many other subcats of W by website need such renames and its hatnote (what some questionably call a "naming convention") needs to be changed, but this is the flagship example, so fix it first. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Further rationale: Super-duper-mega overcat, and useless; with the exception of a tiny handful of Google-hating cranks, every single Wikipedian qualifies for this category as currently named, to one degree or another, and I'd bet that 98%+ of them qualify to a strong degree. Quite a smaller number qualify to an encyclopedically-valuable level of being intersted in Google, in the sense of being willing to work on articles about Google. I can't, honestly, think of a stronger case for a (non-speedy, e.g. typo fix) rename in UCfD history. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ATM, I think it could be fair to say that it's an "all-inclusive" category. (It's even listed as an option in Wikipedia's search engine when the result is page is not found!) - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jc, more or less an all-inclusive category and can't really benefit Wikipedia by categorizing users in to this. VegaDark 09:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be fair, the userbox says "This user uses Google as a primary search engine." Still, too inclusive and not of much use. –Pomte 13:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure I see the relevance; the text of a userbox can change at any time, and UCfD isn't about deleting/keeping/renaming/merging/rewording userboxes (see top of page). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just mean the current category name doesn't reflect its intended scope (see the text in the category itself). This is one disadvantage of following convention in every case. –Pomte 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or the scope changed out from under the category, which is often more likely the case; it's much easier to change a userbox (or rescope a cat. with a new UB) than to change the category. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one of the things that is welcome in weighing the "intent" of a category is what is said in the userbox. (I often check the diff of what a userbox "says/said" when the category was added (which is often the first edit). One of our goals should be to retain the intent of a category if keeping it. If we rename and change the intent of a category, suddenly Wikipedians may find themselves in a category in which they may not wish to be included in. We have had issues with that in the past. (For example, when the astrological symbol categories were merged to the "interested in astrology" categories.) Also, remember that when we rename ategories, that means "someone" (often one of the admins active on this page) has to go and change all the user[ages of those in the category, and this may possibly include inactive Wikipedians (who are thus not around to correct an possible error of inclusion). So we have to be very careful with renaming/merging (moreso even than deletion, in my opinion). That said, I agree that changing the text of a userbox can be useful at times. It all depends on the situation. Hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus' - jc37 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That's a non-rationale. If I used my astounding powers of mesmerism to convince 100 people to jump off a bridge, would you do it too just to go along? >;-) J. Random Editor's hatnote on a category page does not make a consensus-based actual naming convention just because no one bothers to object until a huge mess has been made as a result of it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a feeling that I'll be repeating this as I scroll down the page, but while I understand (and welcome) your exhuberance, and your interest in this POV (which is a valid opinion, whether I agree or disagree), you are straying rather close to personal attacks. Just a friendly request to "tone it down" a bit, please : ) - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone please do it then; the salvageable ones need to be "Wikipedians interested in X", or they're just POV fannish woo-hoo!-ing. I'm in the midst of stubsorting and WPP tagging and properly categorizing several hundred articles (see my contribs lately if you don't believe me :-). Can someone other than me please do the group-noms? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two thoughts: The first is that, personally, arguing the semantical difference between being interested in a topic and liking a topic is a rather subjective fine line. The second is that it's likely not worth the work involved to change them. And third (albeit, perhaps a bit more subjective), I don't see a reason to disallow variation in category naming. Otherwise every subcategory of Category:Wikipedians would follow the "interested in" convention, and I just don't believe that there is consensus for that. - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus' - jc37 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Again, this is not really a defensible rationale; see above at the YTMND entry. Adhering to divisive category names simply because they match other divisive category names is backwards; what is needed here is leadership by example in getting rid of the divisiveness (and fanvertising, and unencyclopedism/non-collaborativeness, and...) PS: Please interpret my ardor about this matter as a wikipolitical commentary on how UCfD is running (in sharp contrast to CfD and SfD, which don't tolerate this kind of stuff at all), not a personal matter in any way.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an easily defensible rationale, per my comments above at Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND. (I also disagree with your characterisation of WP:CFD, but I think that's outside the purposes of this discussion : ) - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above under the YTMND entry, I'd love to, but I'm waaay swamped right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, if you limited it to individual films (as you mention above), and not film series, I think I would support such a group nom. - jc37 09:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think film series could have enough articles associated with the category to justify it, but individual film categories, for the most part, would only have 1 or perhaps 2 articles associated with it, which is too few to justify a category IMO. VegaDark 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agreed in principle (though, again, if the wording were changed to the "interested in" structure we insist upon more generally; movie/comic/whatever fans don't get a magic hall-pass.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 14 edit

Category:Wikipedians by membership of other websites edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge per creator request. VegaDark 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians by website, and should be merged there. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge - I created the nominated category, and it was simply a mistake on my part that I didn't notice the other one.—greenrd 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who know 'x' digits of pi edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic category, no need to categorize users by this. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy False Colour Representations edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who enjoy false-colour astronomy representations - jc37 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is for people who enjoy this. My question is, what benefit do we have in categorizing users by this characteristic? At minimum needs a rename for proper capitalization. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy thinking in four dimensions edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic benefit to categorize users by what dimension they "enjoy thinking" in. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice (and I say this as someone very familiar with tesseracts). I like thinking about hot girls, too, but we don't need a Wikipedians who enjoy thinking about hotties category either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fourth dimension is the target article, per the associated userbox. See the introduction of the article to see why this term is vague. (And besides those reasons, it could refer to "thinking outside the box", as well.) If kept, it should at least be renamed. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of any collaborative benefit from this.--WaltCip 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who think Blade Runner is one of the best sci-fi films ever edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner. - jc37 08:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. bibliomaniac15 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Blade Runner; stop this "like" and "fans of" junk before it spreads any further. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: The fact that some random editor put up an idea for how to name subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in film does not make a "naming convention", and even less does it make the "like" phrasing a good idea. The very parent category itself uses "interested in", and for a reason. All of this like/fan/hate junk is divisive and will lead to nothing but an endless stream of time-wasting UCfDs, as people see the "who like X" category and (if they don't like X) reflexively create the "who don't like X" counter-catetory. Just put a stop to this now. That entire category and every one like it need to be mass UCfD'd for "interested in" renames, and their "convention" hatnotes changed if they are actually recommending "like" phrasing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner, per current convention. Also, just because the name of a parent cat uses a format, doesn't mean the subcats should also, else we might have "Wikipedians by..." as a convention for quite a few subcats, for no apparent reason. Consistancy has to do with the members of the same cat, or similar cats, not with what a parent cat is named. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't buy that argument. No one here has suggested that the parentcat's name can dictate the name of the subcats, nor that subcats should be named as per the parentcat if the results would be nonsensical (Category:Wikipedians by Google). Please. Let's not be silly! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you did : ) - "The very parent category itself uses "interested in", and for a reason." - And "nonsensical" is a rather subjective and perjorative term. I'd rather assume good faith of those who determined the previous consensus, rather than just dismissing them. Consensus can change, but please let's determine that consensus before deciding that others were/are being "silly". - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of APC edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to A Perfect Circle. - jc37 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the userbox associated with this category, it is for people who are fans of the band A Perfect Circle. Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who listen to A Perfect Circle per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by musician. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Trying hard not to make this sound like a personal jab, but how exactly does your repeated position on these matters differ from "resist fixing that which is clearly broken, simply because the status quo, even if dreadful, is better than change, even if a vast improvement"? I honestly cannot tell them apart, so I must be missing something because you seem smart/rational/a good editor/etc. <genuinely confused> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied in the nominations above. If you would like a further discussion on this, perhaps we should take it to the talk page so that it would be less disruptive to these discussions? - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Those who actually listen to the music are more likely to edit the articles contructively than those who are merely interested in it, which includes poseurs who like to think they like the kind of music without actually knowing anything about it and haters who have nothing but bad and more biased things to say. –Pomte 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are proud to be mathies edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in mathematics. - jc37 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially redundant with Category:Wikipedian mathematicians, and should be merged there. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians studying Chemical Engineering edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in chemical engineering - jc37 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only category of its kind. Do we want to have a "studying" category for every interest? VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Getting rid of "interested in" is way bigger a change than my proposal to do away with "like" and "support" and so on. What would you replace it with, that wouldn't raise the same "study"-for-every-conceivable-interest issue that VegaDark brought up? I don't have any particular investment in "interested in"; it's simply what we've been using so far (when not making bad-idea exceptions left and right for movies and websites and stuff). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For conventionally academic subjects, I think "studying" works better. For other fields that people don't generally do academic studies on, the "play", "listen" and "use" type names are more reasonable. Once people graduate, they can rid themselves of this category and stick to "interested in". What I'm proposing though is so trivial and most people won't be aware of it, so forget it. –Pomte 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate América with religious fervor edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete G10. Even if the category was renamed to include "club" before america, to clarify, it's still a "hate" category. Note: Categories which vilify the opponents of some fan's preferred team violate the category rules at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion. And the userbox does as well, (and violates T1 at the same time), and will be deleted along with this category. In a nutshell: Please feel free to use a userbox which shows interest/support of your favoured team, but not one about those you hate. - jc37 09:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely speedy this if it was refering to the country, but its only referring to a soccer team. It is still probably speedyable as a G10, though, and is certainly unencyclopedic. VegaDark 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I don't understand why this category is considered for deletion. Hari Seldon 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of the category. This category does not go against any of the naming conventions. Of course "hating" is a strong undesired verb, but a justification for the verb can be found in the Userbox's talk page. As for the term being "unencyclopedic", I believe that it helps to know the bias of an editor. This is not more "unencyclopedic" than stating that the user "likes the good, the bad, and the ugly". Hari Seldon 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above ed. seems to be the only user.DGG 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox has been recently created. I expect it to catch on.
How about a rename? Hari Seldon 08:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'not' category, which are normally deleted. -- Jelly Soup 07:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - I typically don't like citing WP:ILIKEIT, because I believe that often having a preference is not only allowed in a discussion, but welcome. However, that presumes that both (or more) choices are each valid. The problem is that while I ♥ NY may be a reason to WP:IAR as a variant to the rest of the categories in Category:Wikipedians by interest, or Category:Wikipedians by location, I love New York is not. So if this nomination was closed as "merge to Category:Wikipedians who love New York", then Category:Wikipedians who love New York would and should be immediately renominated for merger/deletion. So in this case, WP:ILIKEIT would be a valid reason to ignore merge requests. (Incidentally, the latter cat was created - by me - due to navigation concerns.) All that said, I would like consensus about this. So I'll renominate, with a question of whether this should exist as an WP:IAR alternative to "...interested in...", and of course, any other concerns. I think that closing and renominating is better in this case than relisting the discussion again. - jc37 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for continued discussion. - jc37 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spoof of Category:Wikipedians who love New York - the proper one without the heart in is supposed to be empty and all of them in Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY but its all mixed up, because of the deletion of the category with the heart in would make this less confusing.Tellyaddict 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator.Tellyaddict 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification - I don't understand what the nom intends to do at all.--WaltCip 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians who love New York, then delete - I can't fathom how this survived the last nom. Having the heart in the category name makes this needlessley difficult to search for. VegaDark 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutey, but communication and information of prior discussions, one would think, should be useful for others to make an informed opinion : ) - jc37 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians who love New York and then delete; since the bulk of the pages that are tagged are in the "love" as opposed to the "♥" category, it seems rather logical to merge the "♥" to "love". Kyra~(talk) 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge and delete → We should disallow "ASCII-art" and similars. If we allow this one, there won't be no end. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The arguments above about being difficult to search for simply are out of the bounds of this discussion. We have MANY characters which may be considered "special" characters in article names. Just look below your edit box to see quite a few. That is one of the reasons that redirects exist. The discussion here should be whether or not the heart symbol is the "accurate" name. We often consider the article name as relevant in relation to the category name. Do any of the commenters above have any references to show that the heart symbol is inappropriate? - jc37 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We often consider the article name as relevant in relation to the category name" - Agreed. The article is titled I Love New York, the heart is a redirect. VegaDark 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the last discussion at that article resulted in a 3:4 no consensus to move back a WP:BOLD move by an editor. I think I would doubt that the m:wrong version makes for good precedent to this discussion, however : ) - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing it to "Love" destroys the spirit of the logo/slogan, and it could arbitrarily be renamed to "Heart" as well. –Pomte 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete for reasons already stated. The fact that there's actually a discussion at all about whether it maybe should be "love" or "heart" instead of the UTF-8 symbol strikes me as missing the underlying point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm wondering if the "point" is collaboration on the specific article, and on other topics of New York City? And since the NYC slogan uses the heart symbol, aren't we supposed to use the "most common usage" if possible, per policy and guidelines? That it's a nonstandard character means that we should have a redirect in place for searching, but the "name" should reflect actual usage outside the encyclopedia. We wikipedians should not be creating a neologistic phrase just because we have a preference. - jc37 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is a split, let the users decide which they prefer. SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm afraid that's not how a UCFD (or any XFD) works.--WaltCip 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? SchmuckyTheCat 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User standards compliant edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - Renominating rather than relisting again. - jc37 07:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for continued discussion. - jc37 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User standards compliant - Even in reading the associated article, I'm confused : ) - I think it's a "agree with the current convention/standard/law" opinion, but I'm not sure. In any case it would seem to be a supporter/critic cat. Whatever the outcome, it needs a rename. - jc37 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Further information would be welcome. - jc37 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actual relevance of this, Its hard to undertand what the category is all about due to the lack of info there now.Tellyaddict 10:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and file under Category:Wikipedian programmers. It encourages collaboration on the numerous articles in Category:W3C standards, and sort of implies that these editors are rigourous with syntax on Wikipedia as well. Not exactly controversial, most people simply neglect or are unaware of W3C standards, as evidenced above. Suggest rename to Category:User W3C. The category isn't populated because the template isn't categorized or listed at WP:UBX, which I will do if this is kept. –Pomte 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they're not necessarily programmers. W3C compliance has to do, of course, with stuff like browsers and coding. IE is bad in that regard, while Firefox claims to be the most compliant. Etc etc. I wonder if there's a good parent cat for this. Xiner (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pomte. I admit that I don't know much about W3C, but it seems to encourage collaboration on a legitimate computer-related topic, so why not? RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If kept, this needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in the World Wide Web Consortium. We certainly don't need to have this category in the naming convetions of the babel system, and we certainly don't need to categorize users who support compying with W3C standards. VegaDark 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable compromise, and I support that rename, though it does mean something different. –Pomte 11:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use the usertalk template edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to categorize users based on what templates they use, and we have previously deleted categories similar to this. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the pages transcluding it are of interest, use whatlinkshere to find them. –Pomte 10:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In light of the tools that I can use to find the usage, I vote Delete.  ~Steptrip 12:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "What links here" exists for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreeing with prior consensus to not categorise by template usage, but instead (for example) by content of such a template. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who is oldest of his/her siblings. edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize Wikipedians by this characteristic. There are also several grammatical errors in the name. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless there's a study correlating oldest children with quality of contributions. Easily fixable grammatical errors are irrelevant to the intended purpose; I don't know why nominations have to point these out. –Pomte 10:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pointed it out so that in case anyone thinks we should keep the category, they can suggest a rename instead of keeping, as a "keep" would result in keeping the incorrect category name. VegaDark 10:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. While perhaps this may show knowledge/interest in such articles as Birth order, this is just too specific. If no consensus to delete, I agree that it really could use a grammatical rename : ) - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-e-elee-ee-eet. Ist der ũberOverCat. (Kind of like "Wikipedians who use thus-and-such website", but perhaps that's a different matter, to some...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Vegadark.  ~Steptrip 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who attend QASMT edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename per original creator supporting rename below. VegaDark 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queensland Academy for Science, Mathematics and Technology per established naming conventions. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per several previous discussions, including a talk page discussion, I think we have consensus that (until/unless the convention is changed in a group nom) the individual school cats may be speedily renamed per consensus. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but I still like to have a second admin's opinion for anything we consider speedyable that isn't explicitly stated in WP:CSD, even if that means an immediate close as speedy after nominating. VegaDark 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. As an aside, this would seem to be similar to "uncontroversial requested moves". - jc37 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use the Latin alphabet edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-inclusive category, so it is not useful to categorize users in to. It is presumed that everyone uses this by default, for the minute few who might not use the Latin alphabet on the English Wikipedia, they can use Category:User en-0. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If an earlier smaller Latin alphabet is meant, vse the catezory user la instead. –Pomte 10:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I disagree with the nominator's final comment about en-0 being the same (there is a difference between written and spoken, obviously), I do think that this is "close enough" to being all-inclusive, since this is the english Wikipedia. (Essentially for the same reasons that Category:User en-0 should be "kept".) - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jc37. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia:Admin-Candidate edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per original author request. VegaDark 11:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, and should be merged there. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/speedy merge as nominator. VegaDark 09:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is for the user's proposal, though it's not at a stage where this misleading category is needed. –Pomte 10:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you r right,did not see the other one existet. removed the page in the category and marked it for speedy deletion. many thanks for noticing! --ThurnerRupert 10:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a proposed way to nominate cantidates, and until it has consensus, the category shouldn't exist (and should merely be commented out in the template for "future reference"). - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 13 edit

Category:Wikipedians that support Leicester Tigers to Category:Wikipedians who support the Leicester Tigers edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedian Leicester Tigers fans - jc37 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename As nominator. Tellyaddict 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedian Leicester Tigers fans per convention. –Pomte 13:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Pomte. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. It's been a while since I've cruised over here, but if this is a convention that we've adopted then it's wrong, in my opinion. This is a US-centric renaming, and if it's become a defacto policy, then we need to consider changing the policy. It is common practice in British English to refer to names of sports clubs with no article. An example would be, "Reds play Wolves today." In American English, we would say, "the Reds play the Wolves today." This is the most common usage, ask any Brit. If we rename a category regarding a British team with a title based in American usage, then we're just propagating US-centrism on Wikipedia. Our policy is to use British spellings in articles pertaining to Britain, I see no reason why this should be different for user categories. A Traintalk 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, but the nomination actually goes against convention, which is why I proposed the conventional rename without the "support" and without the "the". The subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams avoid the "the" altogether. –Pomte 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well taken. A Traintalk 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 12 edit

Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 F.C. Copenhagen fans.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CfD. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:28Z

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support F.C. Copenhagen to Category:Wikipedian F.C. Copenhagen fans
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Consistency with other entries in Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. Dweller 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 72 sub-cats, 66 follow the "Wikipidean xxxx fans" format. If there is a consensus of support for this nomination, I'll nominate the remaining 5 in one go. --Dweller 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom, and do nom the other five because they need to be made consistent as well. The Rambling Man 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are Farkers to Category:Wikipedians who use Farker edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not adhering to the Category Naming conventions for categories. Tellyaddict 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fark.com has an article, and those other things don't. Applying this standard, it will only lead to cruft we already have, not all conceivable cruft. Category:Wikipedians by website has an even higher standard: "only for highly noteworthy and widely-visited sites." This subjective claim is likely to be established by consensus, and I think Fark fits it. Fark.com even has 2 other articles directly related to it to allow for collaboration. –Pomte 13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment: Again (I've brought this up before here) "X has an article" is not a valid rationale for keeping a user category. At all. Bat Boy and gringo have articles too, yet Category:Wikipedians who believe in Bat Boy and Category:Wikipedians who love the word "gringo" are never going to be acceptable categories here. There is no relationship between the WP-utility (and therefore acceptability, among other criteria) of user categories and "but...topic X has an article about it!" PS: Just to be clear, I think all of WPians by Web should be deleted as spam and fancruft; the actual "collaboration" being generated by this stuff is simply not in evidence, and WikiProjects exist for a reason (i.e. facillitating said collaboration). No project? No need for a user cat. Project? No need for a user cat; use the WikiProject's members/participants cat. Simple. The real purpose of these website-worship categories is MySpace-ish userbox goofing-off. I'm sure I'd get resistance on the front of getting rid of them all at once, so for now I am simply resisting the addition of yet more spam and fancruft. PPS: Since you didn't like my original tongue-in-cheek lotion and Start bar clock examples, substitue KY Jelly and Virtual Pool 64. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I take it, then, that you'd also be willing to apply the same logic to all other similar categories, like for instance users of Slashdot, Something Awful and Flickr, all of which are major websites with a large following. I'm generally with you as far as avoiding fancruft goes and we certainly don't need a category for 'Wikipedians who read John Doe's blog' but Fark is one of the major news aggregators out there, has a large userbase and is well-known and, frankly, I think you're being just a bit extreme here (no offense). Also, regarding your general point regarding usefulness or, rather lack thereof, of these categories: yes, they may not be as useful as projects dedicated to a particular subject but with the limited number of major sites, they're hardly a big problem in terms of resource usage (ie. they're cheap and just like that extra, somewhat unnecessary redirect, are just nice to have). Not everything has to be judged in terms of utility, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise we'd have to get rid of 95% of all userboxes and a whole lot of other content. WP isn't just an encyclopedia, it's also a community and I don't think you can separate those two aspects. -- Seed 2.0 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment: You suss me out pretty correctly. The article about Slashdot is pretty good. It's not going to get any better because of the existence of a category which appears to exist for no real purpose other than to declare "allegience" or fandom. Just because Slashdot has a useless cruft category doesn't mean we need to encourage the creation of more of them (I forget the WP:-something shortcut to the appropriate page about that rationale, but there is one). Show me Wikipedia:WikiProject Slashdot and Category:WikiProject Slashdot members and I would have no objection; that would speak of organized, actual collaboration not wishful-thinking, "maybe someday through random happenstance", imaginary collaboration which is masking "dude, this website rawks!" fannish promotion that serves no legitimate encyclopedic or encyclopedia-building purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Fark.com per name of article including the .com. If you want categories like this deleted you should try a group nom, I'd likely support deletion but not in single noms like this, since that creates the possibilty of a double standard if some wikipedian by website categories are kept and others are deleted. VegaDark 07:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Largely addressed elsewhere above (short version: I don't have time for a group nom right now), but I want to add that I hope is clear that I think most of this categories are salvageable if renamed to "Wikipedians interested in X" form, including this one. I've never meant to imply that I think Fark is like the blog of Jennie Q. Johnson, high school sophomore. It's the partisanship that is troubling me, no the notability of the subject! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User wikimarkup enthusiast edit

Category:User wiki edit

Category:User wiki lang edit

Category:User wiki-3 edit

Category:User wiki lang-3 edit

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

The result of the debate was Merge unnumbered cats to Category:User Wikitext, and numberered versions to Category:Wikitext-x, where "x" is the babel number. - jc37 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:User wikimarkup enthusiast and Category:User wiki and Category:User wiki lang. Target name to be determined by consensus. Associated with this is Category:User wiki-3 and Category:User wiki lang-3. Target name determined by the above. - jc37 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ?, per my comments above, as nominator. - jc37 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not, and am not suggesting that the babel breakdown be all merged to a single category. The third level merely has two categories of different names, so whatever the main category is named, the rest of the babel cats should match. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 10 edit

Category:Wikipedians in East London edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - I nearly relisted it for a speedy rename, per VegaDark's comments in the discussion, but then I looked over Category:Wikipedians in England, and none of the others follow that standard. - jc37 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one user in this category, I cant see a Userbox for it either, Upmerge it to Category:Wikipedians in London. Tellyaddict 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge As nominator.Tellyaddict 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the only one user. I created the category because London is really quite large, and finding other Wikipedians in your general area may be of use. Are you proposing to upmerge Category:Wikipedians in Croydon too? There's only four of them. Incidentally, "I can't see a userbox for it either" is a really bad reason to get rid of a category. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Needs to be renamed also to "Wikipedians in east London" to avoid confusion with East London. My bad, sorry. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but no it isn't. East London contains millions of people, a number of whom are Wikipedians. Your reasoning is specious. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't realize there was an article specificly relating to East London, England. Even so, I don't think we can reasonably expect Wikipedians to collaborate on enough different articles than what would already be expected of members in Category:Wikipedians in London to justify an additional subcategory, and I still say upmerge. However, If kept, needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians in East London, England per the article name. VegaDark 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. East London is indeed a very large area and it is also a convenient area for Wikipedians to get together to meet and collaborate. There must be a lot of Wikipedians in this area. I will add myself to this category when I next visit UK as when I do for a month or so, I live with one of my three children who all currently live in Stratford. I suggest you leave it and see how it develops, leaving it to the Wikipedians who live in East London to decide how they want to categorise that fact. --Bduke 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: London is huge, and many sections of it have their own "culture". Cf. previous discussions about things like this in relation to New York City, at WP:CFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Nearly a consensus to rename/merge, but the associated category wasn't tagged, and there wasn't agreement on what the target name should be. Feel free to renominate. - jc37 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is against the naming conventions, I cant see any other categories about users who use Portals, or at least none named like this, unencyclopedic. Tellyaddict 13:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is this relevant? Of course the parent cat should be depopulated. VegaDark's puns are so cheesy they could attract people to portals that are actually maintained. There's a misunderstanding here: This category is for people who support and visit the portal. See Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Energy Portal for those who maintain it. The fact that it's a subset of the WikiProject's member category doesn't really hurt, as this is a separate namespace and it serves a similar function as Category:Wikipedians by website. –Pomte 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cat does not imply those cats deserve existence because this one is about a Portal and those are general projectspace things that would populate a lot more than these ones about lonely Portals. It's not WP-useless to the 9 people who are in it. I read in that depop discussion that everyone but you is only focused on depopulating the categories, and said nothing about the merit of the subcats. I take "divisive" to refer to the act of populating a "by" category, but even if I'm wrong only 1 other person said divisive. –Pomte 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point was I've already given reasons why cruft categories like this are a bad idea ("divisive" wasn't the main point). How is the category not useless to the nine people in it? They already know who they are, the portal is produced by a project they are either already members of or can join (and can still read and edit without joining), and the portal has a talk page. Please. The fact that we are arguing over a nine-member user cat. that serves no discernable purpose is kind of silly. If a portal is lonely (like Portal:Snooker which I've worked on) there are generaly good reasons for that, and a weird category isn't going to help them. Lastly, "general projectspace things" is a pretty darned good description of portals, other than they happen to unnecessarily have their own namespace; the distinction is entirely incidental and artificial. If you'd like examples about as likely to populate as this, how about Category:Wikipedians who're gassed up on WP:BEANS (sorry, I couldn't resist) and Category:Wikipedians who edit Template:Fact. Clearer now, I hope.
  • Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would seem to me that this category is merely another way to say "x portal patrollers". Is it bad to know who tends to watch what pages? I can say from experience that just because someone is a member of a WikiProject, doesn't mean that they patrol, maintain, or even view an associated portal. That said, I do think that the two categories should be merged. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate sand edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. "Not" category violation, we have set enough precedent with categories like these that stuff like this should probably be speedyable. VegaDark 07:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 07:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → The category speaks for itself. Also, only one page in it. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Created in good faith (see user's page), but inappropriate tone. –Pomte 09:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a G1 (nonsense) Speedy, as well. : ) - jc37 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete − I wonder if he has silicon in his CPU? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Adambro 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 9 edit

W b W renaming edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus on:

Rename all the rest - jc37 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the following categories which appear to be mis-named or violate naming convention. Also, establish this naming convention as grounds for Speedy Rename. --NThurston 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of/Participants in

Mis-named

Other naming issues

  • Further rationale: For example sports themselves have participants, and bands themselves have members. Without inverting the wording, this produces ambiguous category names (e.g. is "Wikiproject Cue sports participants" a category for members of the Cue sports wikiproject, or is it the main category for a wikiproject on cue sports biographies?) I know for a fact that in the case of WP:CUE that this participants category was named as it was for a reason, and suspect this to be case with the "Members of" categories. Blind conformity to traditional naming of categories should not be followed to such an extent that it produces ambiguous results. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't see the rationale behind this argument. *WikiProject Cue sports* exists. What confusion would result from saying *WikiProject Cue sports members*? First, it's a category, not a project, so it should be fairly obvious by context what it means. Second, I doubt that people who saw this would think it was a separate project about "Cue sports members," because I don't think that even has a meaning. Third, I don't see that *participants* would be much worse in this particular case, although this highlights why the project should definitely be allowed to choose. Anybody from the project here? --NThurston 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That project chose "participants" not "members". The members version doesn't have the ambiguity, but we aren't here to force terminology on other projects, or enforce conformity simply for its own sake. The changes that would be made to the members/partcipants of... categories don't actually improve anything, and can be argued to make the names harder to understand. "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is that. So, this would suggest additional convention options: "Members of" or "Participants of." I would suggest that minimize the convention, these be discouraged except when necessary to avoid confusion. --NThurston 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, but to the "Participants" equivalent of each category, as I feel that is better than "members" (although both at this time are considered acceptable naming conventions), but rename as nominated if no consensus to do this. VegaDark 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both naming conventions are considered acceptable, so I am going with my preference. I don't see why there would be a problem with that? VegaDark 00:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also: WT:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject.
  • Rename all → as per nom. I like standardization and I think that we should promote it. Also, I prefer "members" to "partecipants", because partecipants means somehow active, while a not under estimable percentage of the member of these categories aren't active. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment: Please see the above discussion: "we aren't here to ... enforce conformity simply for its own sake." I think we all like standardization, but standards have to be flexible in cases when their output would be gibberish if interpreted/implemented too narrowly and ironcladly (to make up a word). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename only the following, do not rename the rest per SMcCandlish:
Category:WikiProject WikiProject Textile Arts members and Category:WikiProject WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology members (looks like the wrong parameter was used; remove one of the 'WikiProject's as proposed)
Category:Image Monitoring Group member (add 'WikiProject' to the front, and change 'member' to plural as proposed)
Category:WikiProject Austria Members (to lowercase as proposed)
The rest should be left to each WikiProject's discretion. Editor Assistance is not even a WikiProject. I thought we had come to the conclusion that these are too trivial to bother with, and plus they can get ambiguous if renamed. I doubt anyone ever browses Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, and even if they do, the sorting is neat for the most part considering. –Pomte 10:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not a WikiProject, then it probably shouldn't be included in this parent cat, so I would change my vote to de-list in that case. --NThurston 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While all the others in the group nomination above have either "members" or "participants" in the previous name, the following do not:
- Is there a reason why "members" was preferred over "participants"? In the talk page discussion, it's suggested that we're going to go with what each project prefers... Have the relevant projects been polled? (I don't mean just these 3, but all projects...) Also, considering that there is currently a reorg of WikiProject status right now, and several WikiProjects are going to be of "Task-force" status, perhaps this should be discussed in a location more central to that discussion. - jc37 11:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason, except that it was easier to copy and paste. I am OK with the "project choose" approach, but there didn't seem to be a good way to do that here. --NThurston 13:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary oppose: I also strenuously oppose any more willy-nilly extensions to the speedy rename criteria. Such matters need to be discussed at-length and in-depth, with their ramifications thought through carefully. A single random UCfD instance is not adequate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we have any "willy-nilly extensions to the speedy rename criteria". We do have 3 or 4 conventions which have been discussed both here, and on the talk page over a period of months, and many UCFDs. If this were not the case, I would strongly agree with you, but I honestly believe that at least the admins patrolling this page are acting in good faith, and I would like to presume most everyone else is, as well. If you still feel differently, I would welcome a discussion on the talk page about this. - jc37 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations to Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations. - jc37 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support the United Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, A consensus was reached here and then affirmed by admins here that categories of the form "Wikipedians who support X" are inflammatory and should be deleted. As such, this category should be deleted. Oren0 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 8 edit

Category:Wikipedians who use RateMyProfessors.com edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) - After further discussion, changing to No consensus. Feel free to renominate. - jc37 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person in this category, bit like spam and generally a "not" category violation, seemingly inappropriate and unencyclopedic.Tellyaddict 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:United World College Wikipedians → Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United World College edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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: United World Colleges.--Mike Selinker 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose depopulating; there's only one user so there's no point having an empty parent for 11 more potential subcats. –Pomte 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would support an eventual depopualtion and 12 sub-cats, with just one member, that seems premature. For now, renaming would be enough. --NThurston 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: This format could be used for all alma-mater related categories.  ~Steptrip 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University → Category:Wikipedians who attended Auburn University edit

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

The result of the debate was keep as named. VegaDark 07:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many categories which require renaming, similar to the below category up for rename, the membership issue is unnecessary.Tellyaddict 13:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but look at the below category, that is under similar circumstances for renaming.Tellyaddict 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same circumstances. Below is an empty parent category that should contain only subcategories, no users. This one is for specific users. If I'm interpreting you correctly, but probably not, since none of them use "attended". Please elaborate. –Pomte 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamantly oppose - As somebody who is currently attending Auburn University, this category is not just for people who attended. Also, please see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States where it is quite clear this category is named correctly per all other existing categories. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Auburnpilot and Patricknoddy above. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the naming convention is correct for our current standards. You may want to consider a group nom if you wish to change this. VegaDark 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, should be group nom. --NThurston 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I much prefer the former format of those types of Categories.  ~Steptrip 02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Catholic education to Category:Wikipedians who went to Catholic school edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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: Catholic schools.--Mike Selinker 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for continued discussion about target name and membership - jc37 12:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from nomination below. I think I prefer Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Catholic schools myself.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 7 edit

Category:Wikipedians in the PROD patrol → Category:Wikipedian PROD patrollers edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians in the PROD patrol to Category:WikiProject proposed deletion patrollers. (Follows consistancy and the discussion below, while retaining the "cool name".) - jc37 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is named as if its some sort of full time job, easier to search for under new name.Tellyaddict 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use Grid.org → Category:Wikipedians who use Grid edit

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

The result of the debate was keep as named. VegaDark 07:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice it contains the ending prefix of .com, similar to one of my other nominations, categories should not have the domain ending on the end, (Example: Category:Wikipedians who use Google).Tellyaddict 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who hate commuist edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G10 - Attack page. See also: Special:Contributions/Revenge_king - jc37 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category (WP:CSD), "not" category, could eventually spark major edit wars etc on Wikipedia due to its nature and hate for people. Tellyaddict 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator.Tellyaddict 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this category and was planning on speedy deleting it when the required 4 days were up, which it will be fairly soon. I'll speedy this then, or more than likely another admin will before then. VegaDark 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that this could be speedy deleted based on the hateful attitude alone. –Pomte 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go right ahead and speedy delete. It's a CSD:G10.--WaltCip 03:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians expecting a baby edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - C1 - empty. - jc37 13:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, qualifies for a speedy via C1, spoof of Category:Pregnant Wikipedians.Tellyaddict 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't matter if it's a spoof or not, it's still nonencyclopedic hooey. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC); updated 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please be aware that "hooey" is subjective, and applying it to anything denotes personal POV, and runs the risk of your comments perhaps being seen as "hooey" (whatever that means) by others : ) - jc37 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Appalachian School of Law → Category:Wikipedians who attended Appalachian School of Law edit

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

The result of the debate was keep as named. VegaDark 08:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to other categories listed here in the same format, would make more sense and would give more info at first glance if re-named.Tellyaddict 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND.com → Category:Wikipedians who use YTMND edit

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. VegaDark 08:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category has .com on the end, other user categories about what websites Wikipedians visit dont have the domain prefix on the end (Example: Category:Wikipedians who use Google.)

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

Category:Wikipedians Refusing to Post Images edit

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

The result of the debate was delete (closing a bit early, but it's been empty for 4 days so this is also speedyable) VegaDark 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost empty category, a bit of a "not" category, has no enyclopedic relevance, if users dont want to upload images then they can just not do, there is no need to advertise the fact.Tellyaddict 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.
  1. It's only just started, so you wouldn't expect it to have many visitors immediately.
  2. It's called a protest. There is a need to advertise it.

—Spe88 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place for protesting and arguments, it would just stir up negative feelings between Wikipedians.Tellyaddict 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator.Tellyaddict 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Not" category violation. We don't need to categorize people who don't do something. VegaDark 18:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Protests are rarely recognized through category creation. It's like holding an anti-war demonstration in Lake Okeechobee rather than some place like Washington D.C.. If you protest something, notify your local administrator.--WaltCip 03:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This one walks a very fine line. I almost deleted the template which populates it per T1. This statement above: "It's called a protest. There is a need to advertise it." was the clincher for me. However as a strong supporter of userboxes, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. What finally saved it was: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria, since while this userbox seemingly violates T1, it also falls under Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground. And since, apparently such targets shouldn't be speedily deleted, I'm going to wait this one out. (I likely wouldn't oppose someone else speedying the template though.) However, since so many of these user categories are populated by userboxes, I think we should have a counterpart to T1, this would also help in cases where only a category is created, with no populating template. - jc37 09:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → NOT category. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 10:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who actually liked The Phantom Menace → Category:Wikipedians who liked The Phantom Menace edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who actually liked The Phantom Menace to Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace - jc37 12:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an NPOV category because of the word actually, its current name suggest that it was not very popular and only some people like it, because of the NPOV it seems to make it eligible to rename.Tellyaddict 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ruby-N edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy per March 15 discussion. - jc37 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be speedy merged to Category:User ruby-4 per past precedent, listing here for another admin to verify. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Merge - The userbox had already been changed, all that should be left are whoever may have subst: or self added themselves. - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 6 edit

TeX-related categories 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 Merge/rename as nominated, no consensus to merge all to parent cat. VegaDark 08:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename:

Case per TeX. David Kernow (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Category:User TeX. I don't think we need proficiency categories for programming languages. VegaDark 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge per nom. And from what I've seen, I think the babel system is useful for programming language cats. - jc37 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge Rename per nom. Useful to distinguish between the 90 users in the parent. I can put myself in Category:User TeX-1 despite having never written formal TeX, simply because I am familiar with the syntax. –Pomte 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who use TeX per WP:NCCAT --Random832 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I've speedy deleted Category:User tex-4 as empty. VegaDark 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename → The correct capitalization is TeX, as already stated in the nom. I think that programming language babel indeed are useful and should have levels, like natural language, apart from -N, of course. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 5 edit

Category:Users Who Are Going To Party like it's 1699 edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete C1 - empty. - jc37 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category has obvious problems. "Users" instead of "Wikipedians" and improper capitalization, not to mention it has no encyclopedic use. Delete. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say I am extremely sorry for making this category. As you can see, no pages link to it anymore. You can delete it immediately. Again, sorry. Chrishyman 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More parent categories to depopulate 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 Depopulate per the nomination. - jc37 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these have only a couple people in them, but we should still establish precedent to empty them in the future. Unless the last nom is considered precedent enough, meaning these could be speedied. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depopulate users from all as nominator. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate per previous discussions. Feel free to speedy. I had already started on instant messenger. One thing I've tried to do, is replace with whatever category that they were "trying" to add. Often you'll see something like: [[Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger|aol]] - So in that case I would replace it with: [[Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger]] - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate:   Divisive. Speedy at discretion.  ~Steptrip 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate → nom. Well, I can actually enforce with Snowbot the depopulation, but it only removes, cannot do something like jc37 proposed :-( Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 10:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate: Divisive, fannish and non-encyclopedic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CO.NR edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use .co.nr. VegaDark 08:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CO.NR - Is this just "Wikipedians by website"? In looking at the associated article (.co.nr), I almost wonder if it's in violation of WP:SPAM rules (or maybe WP:COI?). In any case, it should be renamed, if kept. - jc37 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - pending further discussion. - jc37 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use .co.nr per wikipedians by website naming conventions. I'd likely support deletion of all such categories in a group nom, however. VegaDark 19:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Group nom, group nom! These cats help people work on other websites. Xiner (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no group nom, from what I can tell. I looked into the parent cat, and didn't see any categories about domain names. ^demon[omg plz] 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians who use .co.nr under Category:Wikipedians by website, though that's not the best parent for it. I don't see how this is spam any more than other such categories. .co.nr is unique enough for a distinct cat. –Pomte 04:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 4 edit

Category:Wikipedians with BS degrees and Category:Wikipedians with BSc degrees edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to point out that the "BS" and "MS" categories were around before the "BSc" and "MSc" categories, which were recently created in the past few months. I even made a user box for BSc which used the BS category, however it was recently modified to segregate the categories (which then motivated me to start this discussion). I'd be happy to "leave it alone" by simply linking to the "BS"/"MS" categories, which were declared first and are more common (even though I have a B.Sc. and am working on my M.Sc.—and I'm neither American nor British!). +mwtoews 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge & Rename At a minimum, merge BS & BSc and MS & MSc. If this is done, then you have to rename, because neither BS nor BSc would describe all members. Generally OK with "Bachelor of Science" since BS is an abbreviation anyway, and they are often renamed. Length is not an issue for me. --NThurston 20:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do nothing I changed my mind. There's not good solution for this. Just leave it as is. --NThurston 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between these two? I don't see how "neither BS nor BSc would describe all members", according to the category description for each it looks like either would. Merge to Category:Wikipedians with BS degrees Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees unless I am missing something. VegaDark 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. Since there are different abbreviations in use, it's better to spell out the name for clarity and to avoid the implication that one spelling is better than the other. Same for MS and MSc. Convention is not an ultimate rule. –Pomte 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. The point is that BS is American useage and BSc is Commonwealth useage. Those who have a BSc do not have a BS and vice versa, so neither can include everybody. Similar for MS and MSc. (I have a problem with PhD, because my doctorate is a DPhil, but I do not use these categories) --Bduke 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I really think we should have two separate English encyclopedias. One "Great Britain" and one "American" so we don't have to worry about semantics like this.--WaltCip 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a red herring. It's not just about spelling, usage or convention. They are actually different degrees, even though they are usually treated as equivalent. As Bduke says, "Those who have a BSc do not have a BS and vice versa...."
These are different degrees? In that case they should be seperate, and the category descriptions need to make that clear. Do we have an article with a reliable source supporting this? VegaDark 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it alone. I don't particularly want to spell out all the categories, and I don't want to give anyone a degree they don't think they have, so the best approach is to do nothing.--Mike Selinker 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, redirect the old categories so you don't have to type any more than you have been. Why would any of these people deny that they have a Bachelor of Science degree? –Pomte 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MS above, except that I wouldn't mind spelling out the degree. The problem is a question of consistancy. Do we want to spell out all the degree abbreviations? Hmm... Probably not... - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out that it's actually "B.S." and apparently "B.Sc.", so the current cat names are not quite 100% accurate either. Xiner (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus at the time was to not use the punctuation in the abbreviations. - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't found the previous discussion yet. It was part of a larger group nom, is all I recall. - jc37 06:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link : ) - EVeryone should click on the link to see an example of Mike Selinker, the hardest working guy in UCFD : ) - Also, wasn't there also a discussion either before or after that one? I seem to remember some comments that I don't see in that discussion... (Maybe they were in CfD before this page was created?) - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. If that isn't the naming convention, then it should be. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes 1. As you can see, I started with merge and then changed my mind. Why? Just take a look at Category:Wikipedians by degree. It's an impressive list, and happens to work Very well. And there is absolutely nothing to be gained by merging, spelling out, etc. "It ain't broke." (Perhaps I should propose a new Wikipedia guideline: WP:Ain't broke to keep people from spending a lot of time of stuff such as this.) 2. Degrees are conferred upon individuals by granting institutions. I was awarded a BA degree, not a BFA or something else. So, for most graduates, it would be odd (to say the least) to be categorized in any other way (such as Bachelor of Arts-like degrees). You are proposing an artificial *grouping* of these categories that is a) unnecessary; and b) would be confusing to many users. Who gets to decide on the groupings? Finally, nobody has clearly articulated how it makes the categories more useful - the only argument so far is "I don't see why they should be separate." As my math teacher taught me - lack of imagination is not evidence of anything.--NThurston 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge When I created the cat, BS was intended as a abbreviation of "Bachellor of Science". The other cat's name is superior and more clear. MrZaiustalk 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing. MS/MSc is not just a US/Commonwealth thing; some European universities give MS degrees, and I'm aware of at least one US university giving MScs. If anything, just stick a "seealso" disambig at the top of each category page. Tim (Xevious) 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians with Bachelor of Science degrees. One of the few places where we can actually find common neutral ground on the british/american spelling issue. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 3 edit

Wikipedians by high school edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename all 4 per nom. - jc37 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To match all others in Category:Wikipedians by high school. (It also strikes me that nearly all of these should be moved to the country subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. Does anyone like that idea?)--Mike Selinker 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just went through all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by high school. With only 4 exceptions, every category has only 1 or 2 members. The exceptions are: 6, 4, and 10. The fourth is different: Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians, which is a rather large category. I think I'm going to nominate all the subcats for deletion (as I've mentioned previously), except the IB cat. Compare to: "Wikipedians who worked at the Wal-mart at Raleigh". - jc37 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I've found several more intermixed throughout. - jc37 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that was a waste of time. It seems that there is a template which is being used to populate the US alma mater cat. (Template:Educat) - jc37 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support deleting them all. High school alma mater categories, unlike college ones, can generally only be used to facilitate collaboration on a single article, which brings up my "we don't need a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles" argument. Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, while only a proposed guideline, specifically uses categorizing by what high school you went to as something not to categorize by (in the "Categories of purely local interest" section). For this nom I agree with rename, however, for the time being, since we should have a standard naming convention for these. We can decide on another naming convention (if no consensus to delete) in Jc's group nom. I'd prefer Category:Wikipedians by secondary education alma mater: xx if they aren't deleted. VegaDark 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but frankly, I don't see higher-ed usercats differently. If anything, people from the same high schools can probably collaborate on articles about their city. unlike college ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs)
  • I'd vote for keeping them. They seem not at all different from the college ones.--Mike Selinker 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this nom is specifically about the ante-words of the category names, I think this is as good a place as any to express my dislike for the current convention. Having to have a parent cat name in the name of every sub cat makes me think our category system is broken somehow. I think all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater should follow something like: Category:Wikipedians from <school>. I would even settle for Category:Wikipedians who attended <school>. I realize at the time of the original nominations everything was "in flux", but perhaps it's now worth discussing? - jc37 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like from, but attended doesn't including those attending. Xiner (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like "from" to define schools and locations. Lot of work, though, for a minuscule improvement.--Mike Selinker 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps snowbot will help : ) - jc37 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support & Comment - This is getting pretty far afield from the original nom. Regarding the original nom, I support renaming all education cats to a common standard, which is currently: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School Name.' Now - is this a "good" convention? No particularly strong preferences there, but it does seem to work. Here are options:
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School Name (Status quo)
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater - School Name
Category:Wikipedians from School Name
Category:Wikipedians who attend or attended School Name
The bottom line is that this is all window dressing (and hence, in my book, pointless). Jc37's "parent-child" argument doesn't make much sense to me. We're just talking about substituting out synonyms. The "by alma mater" parent cat is actually what you should identify as redundant, by it ends up being very helpful in sub-catting things. My vote on the convention: Aint' broke, don't fix it--NThurston 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original nom, Pt. II I support emptying the "high school" cat and placing anything that isn't already cat'd into the appropriate country, following any existing naming conventions of the education by country sub-cats. --NThurston 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd suggest starting a new nom for a discussion about changing the alma mater categories naming convention in general. To be honest I think I like the current naming convention better than "from". "From" could imply simply visiting a university. VegaDark 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. - The two users in the category are free to add themselves to the wikipedian singers category if they feel that applies to them. VegaDark 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of wikipedians who practice the death grunt - Needs to at least be renamed. - jc37 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Wikipedian singers. We may have a need someday to find users to create freely licensed sound files for articles relating to death metal, but the potential for collaboration here seems limited at best. —ptk✰fgs 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This can't facilitate collaboration. Can't believe this category has been around for almost a year without me noticing it. VegaDark 06:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (or otherwise delete) I agree with the re-naming, I mean this is way too long for a categry, would be much more appropriate as Category:Wikipedian singers.Tellyaddict 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They can collaborate on the individual articles. Xiner (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest renaming Category:Wikipedian singers to Category:Wikipedian vocalists for merging. If singers get a category, I don't see why other kinds of vocalists cannot. Xiner: Isn't it the point so they can collaborate? If the category doesn't exist, it's harder for them to find each other. –Pomte 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fishless Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category violation. We don't need to know or categorize who doesn't eat fish. No encyclopedic use. This is not the same as Vegetarianism as there is an article on that that members can collaborate on, but there is no article relating to not eating fish specifically, so this category is not helpful. The name of the category is also misleading, VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they could collaborate on List of foods with strong odor, but writing about it would remind them of the taste and smell. –Pomte 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't particularly like fish myself -- I think it's foul -- but we don't need a category for this. —ptk✰fgs 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - frankly I think this is dumb. But I also think "Wikipedians who like Tolkein", "wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox", "Wikipediholics", "Users who like star wars", "wikipedians who play videogames" and so on ad nauseum are stupid as well. But until someone deletes all of those, I can't see how anyone can justify deleting this category. Although it should probably be renamed to "wikipedians who don't eat fish", unless having a similar article somewhere on wikipedia is a requirement for having a particular user category. --Kuuzo 06:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can justify it. Delete.--Mike Selinker 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Understand what you mean, Kuuzo, but this is just a bit too trivial. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whats next, Wikipedians who dont like potato? useless category for enyclopedic use.Tellyaddict 10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with Practical Jokes on their user page edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - jc37 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not helpful for collaboration or encyclopedia building in any way. Also improper capitalization. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also incorrect pronoun-noun agreement. —ptk✰fgs 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every joke on all the user pages are exactly the same, and not as a result of cooperative collaboration. –Pomte 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we ever manage to get a strong guideline against those annoying interface spoofs, this category could be a great timesaver in removing the things. --tjstrf talk 07:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a userbox I think which says something like This user has a sense of humor and shows it on their User page and it categorises into a different category so this is a duplicate, therefore irrelevant.Tellyaddict 10:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's harmless, I like it, it's funny, and other crap exists.--WaltCip 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd consider keeping it if it's got jokes galore, but all these pages consist of a specific prank. Xiner (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Patriot Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was UpMerge to Category:American Wikipedians. - jc37 12:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to see a "patriot" category for every country? I don't, and keeping this would set precedent to allow them. Provides no more use than Category:American Wikipedians IMO, and should probably be upmerged. I could possibly see creating a category for patriots in general (Category:Wikipedian patriots?), but we don't need to have a specific category for each country, do we? VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge to Category:American Wikipedians as nominator. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, does not facilitate collaboration. —ptk✰fgs 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but only if this is established as a precedence for other categories.--WaltCip 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but not as a precedent for other categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics, many of which facilitate collaboration of a set of related articles. –Pomte 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my stance on all politics-related user categories. If someone wishes to describe themselves as an "American patriot", not simply as "American" or as "patriot", then there is no reason why that category is less valid than any of the other Wikipedians-by-politics categories. And the clear precedent is to allow such categories. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Make a general "Patriotic" usercat. Xiner (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: In my opinion this is dicy, as it could become a potential POV-fork of the nonexistant "Nationalist American Wikipedians," which would be an unnacceptable divisive category in my opinion. Take 'american' out and substitute any (other) controversial country and you can easily see the potential for this to be highly divisive, given the long history of contentious editing and arbcom cases associated with nationalistic biases. I should clarify saying that I'm not insinuating that all patriotic americans are ultra-nationalist, I myself identify a strong Jeffersonian and a staunch supporter of my country (yes, I am American), but I fear that this category could become a magnet for POV warriors and an unintentional means of collaborating POV responses and potentially introducing bias. Sadly I think this category is an example of the tragedy of the commons, the potential for abuse or division is great enough it might outweigh the priviledge of an individual wikipedian to express his political views. I'm undecided at the moment, because no strong arguments for keeping have addressed this potential, but I could be persuaded if they were to be presented. As it stands at this current moment, deletion or upmerge may be warantted. Wintermut3 07:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian programmers edit

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

The result of the debate was rename and depopulate. VegaDark 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian programmers to Category:Wikipedians by programming language, and depopulate. - Similar rationale to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers, below. (Though possibly not "quite" all-inclusive.) - jc37 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Apparently this category has been arbitrarily added to nearly every programming language userbox. Help from a bot to simply remove these would be great : ) - jc37 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers edit

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

The result of the debate was rename and depopulate. VegaDark 19:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers to Category:Wikipedians by personal computer - This category should be depopulated as an all-inclusive category. However, the name should reflect this as well. Since we've established that "Wikipedians by" categories should only be populated by subcats, I'm suggesting that change to this category as well. - jc37 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians by personal computer - as nominator. - jc37 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and depopulate. I agree. VegaDark 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated and depopulate. The Wikipedian who edits from a mainframe or server is so rare that this is for all practical purposes an all-inclusive category. —ptk✰fgs 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Just common sense. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not everyone can use this category, what about mac users? Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well having supported the deletion of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User Hezbollah as a divisive and inflammatory category/template, the same reasoning for deletion should be applied to any category/template that attempts to divide Wikipedians along ideological lines in the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:NOT#SOAP.  Netsnipe  ►  19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close and move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Otto4711 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - How is this different from a userbox "I am a liberal American patriot?" (a userbox I've been using for awhile) or any userbox that reflects a user's political stance on hot topics like abortions and gay rights? mirageinred 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the category, not the userbox, but it should be moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. --Bduke 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debate moved from WP:CFD. --Bduke 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't want to see a "support" category for every country, do we? If this is kept it would set precedent to create a cat like this for every other country. VegaDark 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not to mention stateless regions as well. Xiner (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only thing this brings to the table is inflammation. —ptk✰fgs 01:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Collaboration may be better among Category:Wikipedians in Israel and Category:Israeli Wikipedians, though these do not include non-Israeli Wikipedians interested in editing Israel-related articles. –Pomte 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Be gone, inflammatory junk. --Nyp 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I oppose Israel.--WaltCip 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Easy flame-fodder. Keep the userbox if userfied, or if not, userfy. Blast 06.04.07 0955 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 2 edit

Category:Wikipedians in Washington County, Arkansas edit

Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas edit

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

The result of the debate was UpMerge both to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas. - jc37 08:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting both (and merging both discussions) for further discussion. - jc37 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Washington County, Arkansas to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas
Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas to Category:Wikipedians in Arkansas
  • Merge as nominator, plus it is a subcategory of the category to be merged with. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) and 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Washington County, Arkansas has 157,715 residents according to the page, which is big enough to support collaboration I think. However, there are only 2 users in the category. We have previously upmerged a category like this, but that only had 1 person. Neutral on this one for now, pending more discussion. Also, we should discuss what should be done with Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas (which only has 1 user). VegaDark 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Wikipedians in Pike County, Arkansas for now, allow recreation in the future if more users join within 4 days of recreation, per past precedent in this situation. Categories with one user are not helpful, but this could potentially be helpful in the future if more people were in it. VegaDark 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I doubt there are many articles they can collaborate on anyway. Xiner (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bellaire High School Students & Alumni edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy renamed by Xiner. VegaDark 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bellaire High School, Bellaire, Texas

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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/April_2007&oldid=1142247701"