< May 15	May 17 >

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:College and university presidents --Kbdank71 20:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging both of these to properly capitalized Category:College and university presidents --Tabor 23:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 20:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles in this category are all contained in Category:Video storage, and it does not seem an especially useful category. --Tabor 23:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, There are 80-mm CD's which would not be video-storage in most cases (ie. miniCD, business card CDs) 132.205.15.34 01:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Spinboy 17:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At least there is a difference from Category:120 mm discs! :D --Huaiwei 15:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge into some main cat, exact size of the discs is irrelevent. Radiant_* 09:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:British television presenters --Kbdank71 20:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:British television presenters --Tabor 23:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. -- Lochaber 09:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Category:Feral children --Kbdank71 20:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with Category:Feral children, which is better populated and has an associated article. --Tabor 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Category:Isotopes. Is there any other type of isotope than chemical ones? It should also be plural. - SimonP 22:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• The only one I can think of is Springfield's baseball team :)
• Btw support the move. Radiant_* 10:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near-empty; suggest merging with parent Category:Wikipedians, or Category:Wikipedian organizations. Radiant_* 21:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (but already deleted) --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one member. Doesn't seem particularly pointful. Radiant_* 21:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like its already been deleted, but I'm generally going to be for keeping Wikipedian categories, unless they duplicate some other category. My reasoning: They don't interfere with the articles in any way, and if people want to group themselves in particular ways, why not let them? It can be a handy way to find others who share an interest in editing particular groups of articles. -Seth Mahoney 21:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree that 'pedians should be allowed to group and organize, but a group with only one member is not a group. Note that Category:Wikipedians has quite a bunch of groups, and most of them are fine with me. Radiant_* 10:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Most groups are only going to have one or two members for a while. This one, I think, has been around for a while with only one member, so deletion is probably justified, but, I dunno, I'm just saying that if I were to vote, which is moot now, I would vote keep pretty much across the board - the group could (however unlikely) gain momentum at any time. -Seth Mahoney 17:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a good idea, but the parent Category:Wikipedians also has a bunch of 'wikipedians by skill' cats or lists. I'd suggest merging the two either way, and the most comprehensive way seems to be onto the parent. Radiant_* 21:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

To me, that Category:Wikipedians has a bunch of "wikipedians by skill" entries doesn't suggest that Category:Wikipedians by skills should be deleted (although the name should probably be changed to Category:Wikipedians by skill), but that the entries in Category:Wikipedians that belong in Category:Wikipedians by skills should be moved there. -Seth Mahoney 21:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Also support the rename. Radiant_* 10:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, per existing cats for 'characters', 'items', 'weapons', etc. Radiant_* 17:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• "Things"? Good grief. I would think that if one of the many existing sub-cats weren't appropriate for a particular article, Category:Legend of Zelda would suffice. --Azkar 18:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh .. Delete. --Azkar 18:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to list --Kbdank71 14:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has a number of problems:

1. It violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
2. It is primarily of interest to Wikipedians, not to readers.
3. It encourages autobiography (with its accompanying problems) and systemic bias.
4. It is often difficult to verify, and suffers from a difficulty in defining "Wikipedian" (i.e. is someone a Wikipedian is they have an account but rarely ever contribute?)
5. The category name is awkward.

Rather than delete it, we could also change it to a subcategory under Wikipedians, and make it a user namespace category. That would be fine, but that's not a decision I feel I could make unilaterally, so I'm listing it here. Isomorphic 17:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Spinboy 17:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds rather WP:VAIN to me... delete. Radiant_* 17:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• There's some interest in this group .. however, I think the cross-over between Wikipedia name-space and main name-space isn't entirely appropriate. Maybe we can convert this into a list within the Wikipedia name-space, somewhere? --Azkar 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can make it a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians, which is a user-namespace category. We could also create a Wikipedia namespace list. Either of these would be fine with me as long as we don't keep this as a main namespace category. Isomorphic 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well .. it is a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians. My main concern is the main-namespace articles being categorized in what is a user / wikipedia name-space category. --Azkar 19:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a side point, I am unfamiliar with Category:Wikipedians, but is it appropriate for a small number of users to stick their private page in there? Radiant_* 21:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • ISTR reading somewhere that the wikipedian categories were the only place where it was appropriate to categorize a user page. Doesn't really seem to be overly documented, though. --Azkar 21:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't realize it was already a subcat of Category:Wikipedians. The Wikipedians category is intended as a category for the User namespace. Its subcategories are tools to help find certain kinds of Wikipedians, for example Category:Wikipedian musicians. It's a useful community tool, IMO. I don't know how Wikipedians with article ended up categorizing main namespace articles, but I would no longer object to it if it were a category for user pages. Isomorphic 21:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read the text on the category page this time around and found this little nugget: Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. From said article:

This page was created to list people notable enough for Wikipedia articles who are also Wikipedia editors, or have been in the past. It replaces Category:Wikipedians with article which had the disadvantage of being self-referential and not indicating the usernames of those listed.

So hows about we populate this already existing list, and delete the category? --Azkar 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Isomorphic 22:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, too. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Azkar. --the wub (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page of Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles with a list of articles that were in the category, but not listed on this page. Since I don't know these individuals' user names, or if they're really even Wikipedia users, I'm leaving it up to whoever monitors that page to do the detective work on that. The category can be depopulated as soon as this listing is finished. --Azkar 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I disagree with the assertion that this category is primarily of interest to Wikipedians, not to readers; I think that someone reading the Wikipedia article on Notable Person X could very well have an interest in knowing that X is a Wikipedia contributor (not least because it means X could have written part of the article themselves). Assuming the person is already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is a sufficiently notable fact that they're a Wikipedia editor to include it in the article. I agree with moving the category to the user namespace, but I still think that a way of tagging articles about users is desirable—perhaps with a template that can be placed on the talk page, linking to the subject's username? (Something like ((userwitharticle|X)) linking to User:X) Binabik80 13:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. It would make sense if a template, along the lines "Articlename is also an editor of Wikipedia, although - according to Wikipedia's rules - he did not instigate this article" - was put on the articles of Wikipedians. This template could then directly link to a category if it was decided to keep one, or not, if a list was chosen instead. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, this sounded so reasonable that I've just created ((Wikipedianarticle)). Edit at will. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• So what exactly is going on with the category? --Kbdank71 20:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like consensus is still in favour of deleting the category, favouring the existing list and possibly tagging the articles with a template. --Azkar 21:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Beland rules! --Kbdank71 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is jumbled and confusing. I would recommend the following fixes:

• Pull everything appropriate from here, Category:Wikipedia guidelines, and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for a new category, "Category:Wikipedia style guidelines". Make it a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia guidelines.
• Pull everything appropriate from here and perhaps Category:Wikipedia help into a new "Category:Wikipedia how-to", perhaps with subcategories.
• Delete this category.
• Clean up Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory.

-- Beland 06:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good idea, concur with Beland. Radiant_* 08:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea, concur with Radiant! --Kbdank71 14:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, concur with Radiant! --Spinboy 17:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, concur with Kbdank71 and Spinboy! --Grutness...wha? 02:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, concur with Grutness - oh, wait a minute :) Radiant_* 21:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good idea, recur. Isomorphic 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good idea, recur. Isomorphic 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good idea, recur. Isomorphic 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Also take a look at Category:Style guides, which is article space but contains some Wikipedia style guide articles. Radiant_* 12:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• empty duplicate of well-used Category:Incomplete lists (to which its accompanying template now redirects). Grutness...wha? 06:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ~ should use ((expand list)) and accompanying category. Courtland 03:37, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a useful category, there are only four possible subcategories, and they can easily be accomodated in the parent category Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. 132.205.15.43 03:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Spinboy 03:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent. Radiant_* 08:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. --Kbdank71 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a useful category, there are only four possible subcategories, and they can easily be accomodated in the parent category Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. 132.205.15.43 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Spinboy 03:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent. Radiant_* 08:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into parent. --Kbdank71 14:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent. Neutrality^talk 00:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE i created this cat but now that feel its too narrow in scope - there aren t that many articles that can populate this cat, and that its too difficult to sub-cat because flutists can belong to classical, jazz, or other music genres -Mayumashu 02:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word's "Flautists" anyway. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities in Saskatchewan is duplicated by the new and better named Category:Universities and colleges in Saskatchewan. Delete --Spinboy 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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