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 keep. Conscious 06:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It and all of its subcategories are hereby nominated for deletion. These categories are inherently POV as they are self-reported and are probably very inaccurate. Also, we shouldn't be categorizing users, let alone categorizing users by mental conditions. All of these categories are unencyclopedic and need to be done away with. --Cyde Weys 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not inherently POV. I am dyslexic and I have been diagnosed as such by a psychologist. That is a fact it is not an opinion. There might be some people claiming to be dyslexic who are not but I don't really see what good it would do them. You might not like categorising users but it is a fact of life on Wikipedia. There have been attempts to stop it happening but they were defeated. David Newton 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, we've had a user go out and try to vote-stack this proposal to death, so color me unimpressed with any number results I may see below. --Cyde Weys 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there anything wrong with trying to publicize an issue? Salix's notes did not attempt to persuade people, only to alert them to this vote. You seem to be jumping to conclusions. --Lkjhgfdsa 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: It appears to me that people like Cyde (talk·contribs) and Malber (talk·contribs) seem to be of the belief that mental conditions are not medically legit. Atleast that's the way I read their edits --JFred 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the above "for" comments. Userboxes, even the mental health ones, are confined to userspace, so whether or not they're NPOV should be irrelevant. A little solidarity never hurt anyone. And besides, if you want to delete this category and all of its subs, you'd have to delete the Wikipedians by condition category as well, and I doubt everyone would go along with that. Avalyn 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is the message Salix alba left on zillions of talk pages (under the heading "Category:Aspergian Wikipedians"):
Comment Of course the irony of this is those in favour of getting rid of these userboxes won't be able to express this desire collectively if they're anti-userbox, what is this, self censorship? Supposed 07:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For great ...transparency, CWC(talk) 04:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dyslexics and Aspergian were contacted. Wikipedians with AD/HD, Attention deficit disorder, Autism, Depression, Dysthymia, Hypochondria, Obsessive-Compulsive disorder, Paranoia, Schizophrenia, Tourettes syndrome, social anxiety and several other conditions have not been contacted (a total of 564 wikipedians). Whilst it would be interesting to hear the views of some of these users I do not advise anyone to contact these users. --Salix alba (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Create an Association of Wikipedians with Mental Health Conditions[edit]
To better meet the needs of users with recognised mental health condition I proposed that we create a specific WikiProject where specific problems uncontered while editing wikipedia could be address. This project could form a place for people to discuss issues relating to wikipedia, help others understand the problems faced by such users in edditing wikipedia and in participating in the wiki-community. These categories would then become part of the wikiproject. --Salix alba (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now listed the above project on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List of proposed projects and the draft project page is at User:Salix alba/Association of Wikipedians with Mental Health Conditions. Feel free to add your name to the participants lists or improve the project page. --Salix alba (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Users categorize themselves. If they want to disclaim their conditions, they have every right. In many cases, it could help other users understand them better. Besides, wasn't the issue of user space categorizations settled a while back? There's a flourishing user category system now. - Gilgamesh 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a cite for that claim? --Cyde Weys 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose deletion these categories are relevant information for building an encyclopedia. For instance the fact that I'm am a dyslexic has implications for my editing style on wikipedia. There could be instances where a dyslexic user encounters specific problems when editing and the categories offers a means for them to contact other for specific support relating to their condition. Further many of the people using these boxes have been legally recognised as such, my recognition as dyslexic legally classed me as having a specific learning disorder and removal of the boxes could be considered as a form of discrimination. --Salix alba (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a place for building a community and having a support group. It's called myspace.com. No one is saying that handicapped people cannot edit. And no one is saying that people can't self identify in text. -- Malber (talk·contribs) 14:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not asking for sympathy here. If a person is having problems coming off as civil, this sort of category helps. As an Asperbergian myself, understanding what you're trying to communicate is extremely difficult. --D-Day(Wouldn'tyouliketobea peppertoo?) 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, no good reason to delete. Crumbsucker 09:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that everything is allowed in Wikipedia unless it has a good reason not to be here. That isn't so. --Cyde Weys 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that everything must be deleted in Wikipedia unless it has a good reason not be. That is wrong. Material on Wikipedia must violate one of the established policies to be deleted. David Newton 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion. This is not inherently POV if the user has self-nominated then it is very likely a statement of fact. It could be POV and if it consistently as an excuse then questions have to be asked but that is a separate issued from having a category identifying people. As for Wikipedia not being a place to build communities and find support for things I suppose that person has never come across the concept of WikiProjects. On those grounds they should all go. David Newton 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepi am with Salix alba it is a form of discrimination, I'm am dyslexic and other users might like to know this and it might help others understand the reason for my editing errors FallenAngel talk 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all user boxes in this category are used by many members. All wikipedians are all human. Some people have certain conditions eg. asperger's syndrome or hypochondria or paranoia and none of us are perfect. Anyways, I really believe that there should be room for this category in wikipedia. I used to suffer from paranoia and this category and its' user boxes can HELP OTHER WIKIPEDIANS UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO SUFFER CERTAIN MENTAL DISABILITIES. I believe that this category should be kept.Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this form of user categorization can be useful in building the encyclopedia. Circeus 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As would all of the categories listed here: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality Beno1000 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People have a right to disclose what they have and don't have. SFrank85 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, As another helpful self-categorization that can allow users to function more efficiently as part of the community. Dick Clark 19:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As has been said above, Wikipedians aren't classified by mental condition, they are self classified by mental cindition, which they have every right to do. Judging by the fact that a large number of Wikipedians have opted to be included in these categories, I think it should be left alone. Most of the Wikipedians opting to be included in these categories will have been professionally diagnosed, since people without a mental disorder are unlikely to list themselves publically as having one, but people who do have a mental disorder are surprisingly likely to opt to be recognised as such, especially if it is a minor disorder such as Asperger Syndrome or ADHD. Beno1000 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, No reason to delete, can be helpful Scienceman123 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. It does seem obvious to me that any mentally anomalous users might as well just write their syndromes on their user pages, but on the other hand, having it in a userbox makes it easier, as some people might find it hard to find the right words (they might be ashamed of it). Fyrius 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely stong keep - it does no-one reading it any harm, and helps to broadan the horizons of Wikipedians everywhere (after all, if this is got rid of, what would be next?) NP Chilla 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adamantine Keep Only articles need be NPOV anyway. Userspace should never have been restricted in that fashion, because POV in userspace does not harm Wikipedia in anyway. What does harm Wikipedia is unreasonable Deletionist witch-hunts like this one. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Userspaces are there for users to express POV that would be forbidden in other parts of the encyclopedia, anyway. Beno1000 19:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion As has been stated above multiple times, the users in this category are self-classified as such, the userspace doesn't need to be NPOV and these categories are probably usually NPOV anyway, etc etc.--FrostyBytes 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons outlined by several others already. -seinman 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If we want to categorize ourselves, then by golly let us do so. There is no policy against doing this. As long as people are being serious and not adding themselves to make fun of people with mental problems, there is nothing divisive about this. And add me to the list of Asperbergians who feel offended by this nomination.--D-Day(Wouldn'tyouliketobea peppertoo?) 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am about to a little uncivil, so I am warning you now and apoligize in advance. Cyde, what the hell is your problem? Administratiors are supposed to bring Wikipedia together, not divide it, which is exactly what you're doing. So you have a problem with us? It sounds like you are being discriminatory. I am one step away from opening up yet another RFC. What happened to the Cyde who was entertaining, humorous, and helpful on IRC? Your actions are not reflective of an admin. I am asking you, from the bottom of my heart, please stop dividing the community. Your actions are hurting, not helping. I know you are enforcing policy, but stop and think how this is making you look, Cyde. As aforementioned per above, this category should be kept. As quoted from former Wikipedian MSK "Good if you want psychologists and such looking for opinions from real people to get our views heard (and not just those of parents, which is the usual." Now, I am going to have a drink, and hopefully this will be the end of this reign. --Pilot|guy 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People like to express themselves. -- ProveIt(talk) 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; theres a category for everything else, from other forms of autism to things like nationality, favourite foods, and religion. Whats so bad about Aspergers? CaptainVindaloo 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not POV at all and it is important to represent who we are on Wikipedia. There is no legit reason to delete all these categories... and I think it is unfair to discount our votes as "vote stacking" because we should have a right to know as people who have labeled ourselves that our label is going to be deleted. Electricbassguy 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Same reasons that other users stated above. JONJONAUG 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion. I would not have stated in my User Page that I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome if I was unhappy with it being known to other Wikipedians. Likewise, I suspect the same applies to the others who have made statements of a like nature on their own User Pages. In any case, I am of the view (stated fairly forcefully on my own User page) that Asperger's Syndrome is not a 'handicap' as such - it only becomes a handicap when less than enlightened individuals choose to make it such. I think it safe for me to assert that cognitive deficit is not an issue here, not least because I was able to study mathematics to degree level, whch is hardly the kind of activity one would associate with a genuine 'cognitive deficit' ... I fail to see the reason for this deletion, given that the category is NOT part of the main encyclopedia per se. Those who wish to conceal such matters for privacy reasons are free to do so, while those, like myself, who have no problems sharing this knowledge with fellow Wikipedians should likewise be free to do so. The removal of this category bears, to my eyes at least, the stamp of unwelcome intrusion upon the rights of persons such as myself to assert our natures as we see fit. Pray tell, what would happen if the category 'gay' were nominated for deletion? I suspect there would be a holy row erupting if that came to pass! As for the assumption that we should not be categorising people on the basis of 'mental condition', surely forcing us to sweep our natures under the rug, as it were, is the bastion of the bigot? I for one am sufficiently grown up not to need someone else to tell me what I can and cannot reveal about myself, and if anyone has an issue with this, then this says more about them than it does about me. Likewise, I do NOT need 'nannying' by persons unknown who may or may not possess a fixation to that effect - as an adult, I find impositions of this kind, stemming from the needs of others to make me subject to some kind of ideological potty training, severely offensive. My advice is simply, leave well alone and address more pressing issues of greater import to the actual encyclopedia, instead of engaging in exercises in navel contemplation. If that sounds combative, then so be it, as I feel absolutely NO need whatsoever to require 'protection'. Calilasseia 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A vital part of our personalities, and also a neat little template that is just as worthy of existing as many other userboxes. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
Keep -- As you can see from another of my userboxes, I'm strongly suspicious of anything to do with the mental health system. However, I also experience autism not as a mental disorder but a way of being, similar to the autistic community's attitude. As such, the Asperger userbox is a way of saying who I am, as important as the one that says I'm a Cherokee Indian. Maybe some changes or variations would be appropriate, however; after learning something about the history behind calling it "Kanner's" vs. "Asperger's" autism, I've started to think making them separate categories isn't entirely appropriate or necessary. I have started calling myself just autistic. If you wanted to delete "Asperger syndrome" and just have a box that says "This user is autistic", that would be OK with me, but this is controversial and I don't expect everyone to agree. For what it's worth, I was diagnosed over twenty years ago. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute my opinion. --Bluejay Young 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Autism in the traditional sense is a disability that makes it nearly impossible to learn to communicate, and slowing learning in general. Sufferers tend to be low-functioning, meaning that they often cannot finish high school, hold a job or take care of themselves without help. People with Asperger Syndrome are more likely to be high-functioning, meaning that we can go on living near-normal lives, graduate from university, hold down well-paying jobs, and sometimes display multifacted above-average intelligence. For more about the difference, see Freaks, Geeks and Asperger Syndrome by Luke Jackson (ISBN9781843100980). Seahen 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is the old-school view, and is now becoming recognized as inaccurate as more information comes in about autism in general. There's plenty of material describing the controversy. Suggest you read Getting The Truth Out and her blog, Ballastexistenz -- she can tell you a lot about "low function/high function" assumptions, and she welcomes questions. --Bluejay Young 23:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why on the talk page for the Aspie userbox template I suggested that the userbox be changed to identify the user as being on the Autistic spectrum instead of specifying the exact condition. --JFred 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest. Keep. Ever. Per. Calilasseia. There is much debate (particularly with reference to autism) as to what is a mental disorder and what is simply an unusual personality trait. Regardless of such debate, it may not be possible to understand a person very well without knowing that they have a particular disorder. Seahen 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Keep for the many reasons stated above. Asarelah 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These point out areas of interest and possible expertise, and are generally harmless. Smerdis of Tlön 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - love it: leave it! GerritCUTEDH 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion </wheels> Not polemical, and I do not believe all non-neurotypical mental conditions (such as autism/Asperger's) deserve the pejorative "disability".--Lkjhgfdsa 23:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These can help people know how to deal with certain people who have these userboxes/categories in Wikipedia, and properly referred to, can stop problems before they start. See my user page for an example. This comes across as just another battle in the Userbox Wars to me. The guy below who wants to do away with the community aspect of Wikipedia entirely may be a WP:POINT violation; the community helps us build the encyclopedia, and we'd be a lot smaller and less comprehensive without it. Morgan Wick 00:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extrememly Strong Keep Most people who have a mental illness know a large amount about their own illness, unless it somehow prevents them from doing so. I personally have depression, and I would say that I know a pretty good amount about it, a true expert would know more, but I know more than most people. If you told me that I couldn't be an expert on my own illness, it would be like telling someone they couldn't write an autobiography, because they are not an "expert" on the person. How many verifiable experts on Wikipedia are there? Probably none. You cannot verifiably say that what someone says online is true in real life. This deletion nomination seems to have been made rashly, becasue it was not specific, instead, it covered all of the mental illnesses. --Tom 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this category or other "Wikipedians by mental condition." Cybertooth85 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have Aspergers, and I put the info box on my user page to simply provide a bit more information about myself; it certainly never crossed my mind to put it there as some sort of excuse for bad behaviour. It is as much a part of me as playing the guitar, or living in Ireland, or anything else on my user page. I see no rational purpose behind this proposition. Martin 03:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What is the userpage for if not to provide biographical information about one's self, including any mental disorders one might suffer from. --JFred 03:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have suggested that the Aspergers userbox and accompanying category be renamed to the more general Autism Spectrum Disorder, of which Aspergers is a sub-category. This might ease the problem some people have with the Aspergers categorization. --JFred 04:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm sorry to hear about the vote stacking, and hope that my edit here is contstructive. A completely self-reported, voluntary category (supported by userboxes) for mental illness helps to organize the userbase and alert others of potential difficulties that may be encountered with that user's edits. For instance, I suffer from major depression. That depression is currently under control, but from time to time I have relapses. If my edits all of a sudden become more negative and/or hostile, a quick check of my user page would help other users understand the possible causes of said hostility or negativity. Mental illnesses almost invariably affect the way that people communicate. That is especially true for people with disorders in the autism/Asperger's Syndrome spectrum. For those who are comfortable with that level of self-disclosure, this category and the associated userboxes can and do help other editors maintain an assumption of good faith. The community exists to support the wikipedia, and not vice versa; I understand that. But in this case, by helping to identify the factors that contribute nontrivially to an editor's style of contributions, the benefits to the community are non-trivial. Sorry for the length; I hope that this is taken into account when judging community consensus. Captainktainer * Talk 03:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) "These categories are inherently POV as they are self-reported and are probably very inaccurate." Self-reported does not mean self-diagnosed. These are in many cases diagnosed professionally, and therefore not only not POV but very likely accurate. Nominator should assume good faith on this unless he/she has hard evidence to the contrary.
2) "Also, we shouldn't be categorizing users, let alone categorizing users by mental conditions." "We" aren't. the users themselves are, which is a completely different thing.
3) "All of these categories are unencyclopedic". Not given that a person's mental health conditions are likely to have a notable impact on their (a) article writing, (b) ability to deal with conflicts that arise between editors, and (c) predictability when being dealt with by other editors. As such, they provide a very useful insight into an editor - one which is extremely useful when working in collaborative situations like writing an encyclopaedia.
Grutness...wha? 08:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (clinical depression sufferer)[reply]
Please keep this category. I suffer from Asperger's Syndrome, and I find it rather offensive that someone feels that we cannot make our voices heard, and express ourselves in the way we choose. If we cannot say we have a mental condition, does that mean we cannot say anything else that is ture about ourselves, our bodies, and our beliefs? As to the idea for a wikiproject for mentally disabled users, I support this, as it gives a forum to all users who suffer such conditions an equal say, but we should be able to say what condition we have. ISD 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone who knows much about Asperger syndrome would expect, many of our better contributors are Aspie to some degree. Knowing that someone has categorized themselves as Aspie can easily prevent lots of communication difficulties. Similar arguments apply to other mental conditions.
To be blunt, understanding the importance of knowing these things about people you work with is a sign of maturity. Regarding these conditions as irrelevant is a sign of ... something else.
(The above is just my expansion of Grutness's third point.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Grutness. Homestarmy 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. I, too, am a sufferer of Asperger's. If you don't like it, then that's your right. But it is my right to join with other people like me. Porphyric Hemophiliac§ 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The argument that it is selfreporting is no reason to delete, al categories are selfreporting and thus should be deleted (who is to say I am indeed Dutch, Msc, Bcs etc etc). Infact the whole user page is selfreporting and should, if the selfreporting argument is valed, be deleted. Mach10
Strong Keep Why in the world would you want to delete it? I am dyslexic and there's nothing wrong with admitting that in my userpage! --HAYSON1991 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Grutness. The nomination is flawed. Primarily it fails to recognize the "community of encyclopeadists building an encyclopedia" aspects of this project, although the very fact that we are all here casting about for opinions is indicative of the importance of the community to the project in a very real way. As an Aspergian person I have found no offence in identifying myself as such to my fellow Wikipedians. I haven't made any memorable edits to articles relating to mental health issues as they fall far from the purview of my interests. But, I don't mind knowing via the Apsie userbox and the link to the relevent linking page that I have people out there in WP space that are more like me than not. Hamster Sandwich 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep categories that group Wikipedians by country or geographical region don't seem to be up for deletion, and nobody has asked me to "cite sources" by providing proof of my address. Categories like this, in userspace, don't affect NPOV in the main article space and help Wikipedians with similar interests, personalities or whatever to get in contact with like-minded people.
Strong Keep No good reason to delete. And I agree with ISD, it is rather offensive, as I am aspergian too, I feel the same exact way. Ebb 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Ebb[reply]
Additional comment With respect to some fo the points made above, I am intimately aware that Asperger's Syndrome is considered to be, for want of a better analogy, a point on a continuous line (perhaps a more correct statement would be that it is a line segment that is a subset of the whole line). Workers in the field now speak of the 'Autistic Spectrum' and treat it as a continuum. I'm perfectly capable of comprehending this, and so, I suspect, are the majority of contributors here, so I'd like to have that particular tangent brought to an end on the basis that most of us know what we are talking about, and if we have any knowledge gaps, we can turn to a plethora of sources to fill those gaps - including Wikipedia's Own Autism Article, which was in the past a featured article!
Now I'm going to turn to a slightly different issue. Personally, I regard viewing it as a disorder to be unhelpful. I prefer the term autistic spectrum condition. My reasoning being that, as I have already stated above, it need not be a 'handicap', and generally only becomes one when unenlightened individuals make it so, either through ignorance or outright malice. Such persons are not likely to be a frequent component of the population of Wikipedia contributors in my view because such behaviour is the province of the wilfully ignorant, and wilfully ignorant people are hardly likely to be attracted to a project with a large educational component such as Wikipedia (except perhaps as trolls and vandals, but they'll manifest themselves as such in due course and be dealt with in accordance with established procedures for dealing with trolls and vandals). Since we can therefore make a fairly safe assumption that the contributors here possess some education and some cognitive capacity allied to that, I can therefore feel safe in asserting that keeping this category will not in the main be problematic, and may indeed serve utility value.
As an additional point, when mention above was made of 'bad behaviour' with respect to edit practice, I found this surprising. Not only because the majority of contributors do edit in good faith, and strive to explain why they took the steps that they did when edits are controversial, but anyone possessing any familiarity with the subject of autistic spectrum conditions will know that one trait frequently manifests itself among those possessing such conditions - more than usually law abiding behaviour. Documentation to this effect can be found in Hans Asperger's own 1944 paper (an excellent translation is available in the book Autism and Asperger's Syndrome, edited by Professor Uta Frith, ISBN052138608X). Any controversy arising from editing performed by an Aspergian Wikipedian is likely to arise principally out of a combination of intensely narrow focus combined with an incomplete understanding of the rules. Precisely because I am aware of this possibility, I have been less bold in many of my own edits than I otherwise would have been, so as to circumvent this possibility. Where I am convinced that an edit is required, but feel that my own contribution needs additional work, I will adopt the commonsense approach and ask for assistance, probably in the Talk Pages. If asked, I will provide to the best of my ability an explanation for my edits. However, in the case of less experienced individuals (younger?), knowledge that this could be an issue will be of utility value in smoothing edit controversies because it will allow administrators to ask pertinent questions before acting. Is not one of the fundamental tenets of the entire Wikipedia project that shared and expounded knowledge is good? On that basis, I continue to commend the maintenance of the category.
The bad behaviour comment related to a person with Tourette syndrome, this comment has now been withdrawn. (this deletion is for all psycological/mental health conditions user categories not just Aspergers). 15% of people with Torettes also have Coprolalia (the spontaneous utterance of socially objectionable or taboo words or phrases) which was used as a reason for bad behaviour. --Salix alba (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I want to ask a question - someone above mentioned 'vote stacking'. I was not aware of the existence of a voting procedure with respect to this. Can someone provide me with details? I assure everyone that I shall only cast one vote if I am counted among the eligible voters! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calilasseia (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 May 2006 (Oops, thought I'd signed it - my bad! Calilasseia 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
So far as I can tell, the "vote-stacking" referred to is a user spreading the message of this deletion vote to people with these categories, which seems sensible (they're the ones who are affected by it), but those people by nature are predisposed to vote against deletion. It has nothing to do with sockpuppets per se. Morgan Wick 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I though it appropriate to inform those who might be affected by the deletion and suffered due penalty for my action. --Salix alba (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out I was not directed to this nomination by anyone and found it by my own accord. I only added schizotypal and dyslexia userboxes to my userbase recently so my opposition to this nomination for deletion is independent. Supposed 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm normally vaguely anti-userbox and all such userpage fluff, but I think that many of these subcategories are important information for fellow editors to aide the smooth running of the encyclopedia. — Laura Scudder☎ 00:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't see what the problem is at all and see this as abit of an attack on people who do have mental conditions and want to identify with people. It would only be wrong if people were forced to tell others about their condition, but we are telling people voluntarily. I want people to know who I am so they can understand me better and the userbox serves as a good way to tell them that and to know what problems they suffer from. Believe it or not people with mental health problems have needs, the first step in recognising those needs is realising that they have a problem! The userbox serves that purpose among many others.
I am also really excited to see other people with my disorder on here as I'd like to talk to them about it and as people with other mental conditions how they feel. Supposed 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion I also have Asperger's syndrome and feel that most every point has already been made. I generally don't follow Wikipedia politics because I'm just interested in contributing to articles, but I thought the question of user categories was long ago settled. Why has this come up again?--NeantHumain 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep. I also have Asperger's syndrome. Only articles really need to be NPOV, and Stevie Wonder would spot that it is perfectly NPOV anyway. Duke toaster 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Self-diagnosis is not "unreliable" (at least not Asperger's syndrome), and even if it was, it is the user's own choice to identify with it. --Rdos 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong as The Hulk Keep. It's a big thing out there. Millions of people have it. Or at leat thousands. I dunno. What Duke Toaster and Rdos said. --HomfrogHomfrogTell me a story!ContribulationsHomfrog 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be helpful for me to explain what my conditions does and how it will affect me and others on wikipedia. I have quite disordered thoughts oweing to schizotypal disorder so that I tend to write in a slightly confusing but often elaborate manner. In the past this has resulted in attacks toward me, as some people felt I was being a little pretentious. This caused me alot of agro and grief, especially when a highly emotive topic was involved. On a personal note, interestingly I was diagnosed with dyslyxia threes prior to the other diagnosis, I think the educational psychologist didn't realies what was wrong with me, after seeing the psychiratrist for a year it was quite clear what was causing the problems noticed in the dyslexia. For the time being I have put both userboxes up as I'm not sure what to think at the moment. Supposed 03:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremly Strong Keep Reasons already dozens gave above-Sauron 06:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wiki users classify themselves, reasons stated above just dont follow policy, they even go against "assuming good faith" by assuming people in the group are liars. Where is the Wiki love? =) --Zer0faults 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep - Especially Category:Aspergian Wikipedians Perl 17:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I think there should be categories that users may optionally place their user pages into, and I think categorizing by mental health condition is legitamite. Q0 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Call me idealistic, but while it may not be exactly Encyclopedic, I feel these categories help wikipedians find other wikipedians who may be facing with similar challenges in their lives. In such a manner, wikipedians can support other wikipedians, and we won't lose potentally good editors (helping to strengthen the Community). Like any large scale project, Wikipedia needs to be both an Encyclopedia and a Community. Without the Community, the Encyclopedia will fall to pieces, without the Encyclopedia, there is no purpose for the community to form. --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah but it is encyclopedic to record the details of people who contribute to wikipedia, that should not be disputed. The issue is whether it can be verified. Such information is descriptive about how each article came to be created. There is a face behind the creation of articles, wikipedia is not a faceless entity. I've decided that after my uni exams I'm going to submit a psychiratrist letter and an educational psychologist report to wikipedia to verify schizotypal disorder and dyslexia respecitively, of course then lies the problem of verification of my identity :-( or whether anyone actually wants to be identified. For example you could oneday conduct a study to see where people of diffierent, social class, ethnic origin, profession, nationality etc contribute. The record of such a study would be very encyclopedic. Supposed 09:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP - Although these wiki's main purpose is to provide knowledge, it is also for providing communities. This is equally important. Imagine if everyone hated each other. You wouldn't get anywhere. Categories can be useful for this job. Look at all the userboxes. Most of the userboxes categorise users. Here is an example of how categories can be helpful:
'A' wants help with article 'B'.
'A' uses category 'C' to find a user that will help him.
Delete all. This is unencyclopedic self-indulgence and it is very likely highly inaccurate. Sumahoy 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYour statement that the self-catagorization is very likely highly innaccurate is an assumption of bad faith, which goes against the policy of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Asarelah 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- I've undergone therapy. I did suffer from paranoia from the past. That's not unencyclopedic. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is entirely unencyclopedic (unless you are a famous person and your mental illness is notable, i.e. Van Gogh). --Cyde Weys 04:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very unencyplopedic not to inform people about what runs wikipedia i.e. the individuals who edit it --Supposed 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Self-diagnosis is generally not unreliable. I've shown in Aspie-quiz that self-diagnosis of Asperger's is just as reliable as professional diagnosis. --Rdos 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
self-diagnosis of Asperger's is just as reliable as professional diagnosis You should know that mental health diagnosis is never as simple as that, even if the online test were as good an indicator of the conditions as a professional diagnosis (which it's definately not) consulation with a psychiratrist is important as it's the persons 'mental health' which must be enquired about, the person could have an all manner of mental conditions, an online test is not going to show it.
Delete this and every user categorization that does not involve an area of user's own expertise. 70.51.10.35 05:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDoesn't having a certain condition make a person more likely to know more about it than a non-sufferer? Asarelah 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthis and every user categorization that does not involve an area of user's own expertise. --- I have undergone therapy and user boxes like this helps other members understand other wikipedians. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait a minute! You're saying that people with mental conditions can't be experts on their own condition? --Bluejay Young 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unencyclopedic, inaccurate self-identification, and in the case of (alleged) users with Tourette syndrome, appears to be potential attack or derogatory claim, as some may be using inaccurate stereotypes about Tourette syndrome, which is inherently POV. Sandy 11:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo assume that people are innaccurately identifiying themselves as having a condition and are trying to sterotype people with it is a violation of the Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I have yet to see any indication that the users who categorize themselves like this are lying. Asarelah 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that I am a liar? You are claiming that these categories are inaccurate self-identification. I have been diagnosed with dyslexia by an psychologist so I do have that condition, whether you like it or not. If I want to inform others about it that is my choice not yours. If others have categorised users that is one thing but these categories are for self-categorisation. David Newton 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not assuming these people are lying, or failing to assume good faith. In trying to find others to work on the Tourette's articles, I went through each of the "users with TS," and found virtually no history of interest in the TS articles. And, since I receive dozens of daily Google alerts referencing the word "tourette", I have a solid sense of how the term is commonly used. It is a common reference to potty mouth or oral diarrhea, and more often than not, has nothing to do with the actual condition. This might be the case on Wiki, where the term is often used derogatorily and inaccurately. Sandy 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone is diagnosed with something doesn't mean they have a specific interest in that subject. --JFred 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, in my case, stating that I have Asperger's isn't merely a case of self-identification. I know with very good certainty that I possess an autistic spectrum condition because I was diagnosed in 2002 by Dr Simon Baron-Cohen and his team - people who are being spoken of in some circles as potential future Nobel laureates in medicine! While not everyone may enjoy quite the advantage with respect to verifiability that I do, it is erroneous from the simple standpoint of logic to assume that everyone who places that particular userbox on their Talk Pages is 'self diagnosed' - there is something of a difference between existential and universal quantifiers! Quite a few people do engage in self-diagnosis, and indeed it was thanks to my encountering Uta Frith's book (scroll up to my voluminous comments above for the reference) that I began asking questions and sought professional assistance. That assistance confirmed my suspicions. I am probably not unique in this regard. Incidentally, last time I checked, the featured article on Autism was on my watchlist ... :) Additionally, the very fact that we are having this debate at all answers another point - namely the relevance and the importance of the contributing community. Without that community, we would not have Wikipedia! It is therefore legitimate for members of that community to communicate through the medium by the mechanisms provided, and those that contend that this particular mechanism is an invalid one need to provide stronger reasons than those cited. The argument that the category is 'unencyclopedic' would only matter if this category was itself intended to be presented within the encyclopedia proper. To my knowledge, this is not the case, therefore I contend that the objection is meaningless. Likewise, while there are certain 'limits of propriety' with regard to self-expression on User Pages, I contend that this does not transgress those limits, and indeed may provide utility value (again, scroll up to my voluminous earlier comments). Deletion of the category would itself be, I further contend, an action that transgresses the spirit (if not the letter) of the Wikipedia canon, and while I have my own views on this topic, again the necessity to assume good faith requires me to be circumpsect with respect to the promulgation of those views, not least because those views could be erroneous. However, I shall assert here that I would consider deletion of the category to be gratuitous, and that the category provides utility value not only to those that take advantage of it as I do to assert facts about themselves (and I emphasise here that in my case it is a fact for reasons cited above) but to those responsible for steering the Wikipedia project as a whole. Calilasseia 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not relevant to how an editor edits. Good behavior is expected regardless of condition. -- Malber (talk·contribs)
Comment Administrators should know that bad behavior in Wikipedia is inexcusable regardless of mental condition. Furthermore, I am sure most Wikipedians with these userboxes would never use it as an excuse to vandalise. Beno1000 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, if someone can't be helpful as an editor, be it due to mental disorder or any other reason, they shouldn't. These userboxes are for those who can contribute to Wikipedia despite (or perhaps because of) their condition. If I didn't have Asperger Syndrome, I'd probably be contributing much less as an editor, because I'd be spending more of my spare time socializing. Seahen 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand disagreeing with ignorant statements made by Malber is bannable offense, this is ignorant. Bad behavior is inexcusable... I have asperger's syndrome and I don't tell people at my job because I don't want to be coddled. Here I feel free to identify myself as Asperger's because I know I will not be treated different if I break rules. This is a vague assumption made to insult a former member. It should not be considered valid in this argument. Electricbassguy 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting a userbox will not prevent people from behaving like jackasses. --Bluejay Young 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's so political about being diagnosed with Asperger's, it's an official diagnosis under the DSM-IV. And it's not a self-diagnosis either. BTW, are any deletion supports diagnosed with any of these conditions? --JFred 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per above statements. --Strothra 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total waste of server space. Calling Wikipedia an online encyclopedia and community is a bad idea. It should just be an online encyclopedia, period. Hawkestone 22:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCalling Wikipedia an online encyclopedia and community is a bad idea. Well no! if you take away the community you take away wikipedia! And besides that's another issue entirely. What you just said though sounds horrible, I mean what sort of a world would that be like to live in? There is a community behind every organisation and there are very few places where that community is more important than wikipedia. It seems very unencyplopedic not to inform people about what runs wikipedia i.e. the individuals who edit it Supposed 02:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Supposed 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that its' our right to tell people about our conditions. It may take up some server space and I believe that wikipedia is more than an online encyclopedia now. It has become a community as well. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do rights have to do with it? Wikipedia is not a self-expression workshop. Anyway, you can write what you like on your user page without using this category. Carina22 09:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Classifying Members under certain categories eg. Category:Aspergian Wikipedians and Category:Paranoid Wikipedians can help those who don't suffer any mental disability understand those who have these disabilities. People with asperger's syndrome or paranoia can have difficulties when using wikipedia. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 10:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There are plenty of sites to meet all needs. This site has a specific purpose and this category is not relevant to it. Carina22 09:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not relevant to the encyclopedia. In fact it is detrimental. Instead of articles being judged by content, they will be judged by the editor. Can you imagine perfectly accurate mathematics articles questioned or reverted based on the editor being dyslexic? Also, other editors will add editors to these newly created categories. Wikipedians Diagnosed with IQs less than 80 or Wikipedians with Cerebral Palsy would be my personal favorite category and diagnosing other editors would be quite easy. Editors should be able to conform to the rules and edit articles according to the rules. No condition supercedes the rules and if their condition inhibits participation that should not be the concern of the project. --Tbeatty 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people see this category as a "waste of server space", Its not. We're just humans and none of us are perfect. Some of us suffer from different disabilities and it may affect the way people contribute to this website. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to be flip, but who cares how you contribute except by following the rules? This isn't about the way people contribute, it's about creating an encyclopedia. Disabilities or special knowledge is simply not relevant. And trying to make it relevant changes the focus and goals of the project and is therefore detrimental. --70.190.27.105 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said before the community on wikipedia needs to have identity as its an important part of wikipedia there should be as much info on it as possible, hence you need to know 'who' is doing what and where. This may even help you to identify bias in future, thus I think wikipedia should go alot further than just allowing this category but instead actuveky encourage people to declare their 'conditions' 'political affiliations', 'occupations' 'unions they belong to' etc etc and provide verification. You could even then go on to create an indicator on each page which measures the level of bias toward different 'world views' etc based on what sort of individuals contributed to it. Supposed 05:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to expand on this idea in future as it could provide a solution to POV disputes. Often people get upset because an article which they think is not NPOV is displayed while they spend months in mediation discussing aledged bias. An example is Dhimmi, althuogh I think the article is quite accurate, it is important to identify what the beliefs are of the people who have left the article in its current form. Such an indicator, based on some sort of scale, would help the public understand what the article represents. Have there been any attempts to quantify user bias on wikipedia before? A study of wikipedia accuracy and bias would look at the background of the contributers as well as the article. So it would be abit silly not to encourage people to reveal informationa bout themselves.
And before anyone says it, I know that the above assumes the article can't be NPOV but let's be honest. There are articles on wikipedia that are just sitting there in a POV form whilst people debate little bits of them. The tagging of articles as not NPOV is not enough, IMO there needs to be something there about the users that created it because you're never going to get NPOV on some articles or at least a POV version will be displayed for a long time. Anyway apologies for going off topic as I know 'mental condition' doesn't reflect POV but does have a profound effect on peoples political views Supposed 06:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further CommentThis page must be read by some people. It is a fact that having a certain mental disabilities affect the way people edit wikipedia. They can have difficulties, mistakes etc. This category lets non-sufferers know who has mental disabilities and assist them if they need assistance. As a former sufferer, I know this. Keeping this category can make this website a better place and help the building of this encyclopedia. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 11:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I'd also like to add that it has the added benefit of increasing the informity of wikipeidia users toward the understanding of mental health conditions. I think that's a good thing too. Supposed 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer this and all similar Wikipedian categories to external database maintained by those interested. David Kernow 11:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry: Would the userboxes remain? I wouldn't mind the categories being deleted as long as the userboxes remained. --JFred 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bold idea: Why don't we set up something like a WikiCommunity and have those instead of User Categories, and have the userboxes link to those instead. --JFred 23:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think your proprosal is actually quite a dangerous move for wikipedia, because the community would be independent and if it wanted to in future it could decide it didn't want to be a part of wikipedia anymore and contribute to a different wiki encylopedia instead. Perhaps I'm going abit overboard but if this led to almost compelte disagregation it could happen Supposed 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose that is a way of checks and balances which is good in that a consenus among the entire (English) Wikipedia community would need to be nurtured, lest some sub-community will invariably feel so alienated that it will secede. This is of course bound to happen anyway, but it is an effort that should be based on nurturing and tolerance and respect for one another, not by harsh discipline. And maybe it's just an unavoidable part of the evolution of the wiki movement. Hard to tell the at the rate future turns to present and past these days. __meco 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Aye I know what you're saying. i was basically saying that by seperating the community from the encyclopedia you could end up forking the whole project as you simply don't know how wikipedia is going to change in the next few years.Supposed 06:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just transfer all the user-related material (userboxes, things labeled "Wikipedian", etc) to a database/domain/etc that's separate from (but linked to) the main encyclopedia. In other words, make a clear(er) demarcation between the encyclopedia and the community as regards data management. Regards, David Kernow 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of making a LiveJournal or MySpace (preferably LJ but I'm on both) community for Aspies on Wikipedia, but I don't know how many Aspies on Wikipedia are on LJ or MySpace. You can let me know if you're on either on my talk page. Something like this was suggested and if it's possible I'd like to make it work. Also, if someone wants to do the same thing with another mental condition, feel free. --JFred (talk·contribs) 23:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do what Wikia does - Have a Wikimedia Sister Project for a 'Wiki community' and be able to use templates from it. In Wikia, you can do something like ((wikia:Something)) and the Template:Something from the central Wikia will appear. You can do it in any wiki. --Leon2323
20:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like the kind of arrangement that occurred to me; have all the data and maintenance of community-orientated material (userboxes, "Wikipedians who..." categories, etc) kept separate from the encyclopedia, but (inter)wiki-linked with it. If that's possible without too much time/effort/hassle, here's my vote! Regards, David Kernow 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Wikipedian Hattrickers
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. 3D, 3K.Vegaswikian 06:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. An unencyclopedic category that really serves no point. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and every user categorization that does not involve an area of user's own expertise. 70.51.10.35 05:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer this and all similar Wikipedian categories to external database maintained by those interested. David Kernow 11:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHattrick is a community of about 800,000 users and such a category would serve the purpose of identifying those users. It's the same level of categorization as Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox or Category:Winamp users and it's certainly more useful than Category:Wikipedians not using IE. Any purpose that those categories serve Wikipedian Hattrickers also serves. This should be an all-or-nothing proposition... either all the categories in Category:Wikipedians by software should go or Wikipedian Hattrickers should stay. It's every bit as useful as those categories. Since this vote is for this category alone, I have to object. There's nothing to set this category apart from other Wikipedians by Software categories. And if this is a question of number of articles in the category, it's worth noting that the category had many more articles a few days prior to this nomination but has temporarily lost a great deal of its articles due to the deletion of Hattrick userbox templates. -DMurphy 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While certainly not as necessary as the categories dealing with the software under which users view WP, this is an expertise. Septentrionalis 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DMurphy I was one of the people whose userbox was deleted. When the bot replaced the userbox it didn't put the category back. -- GTWeasel 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Conscious 06:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a non-fictional crossover, and nothing from crossover is likely to spawn a category anytime soon. Circeus 00:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless names less vague than "Fictional crossovers" or "Crossovers" proposed. ("Crossover" is a much-(ab)used term, e.g. in music, postmodernism, etc). David Kernow 11:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like the content has been carefully chosen, and everything is appropriate. I just don't believe the name is. Circeus 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually, most everything in crossover is an example of a non-fictional crossover and I don't see their likelihood to spawn a category as being relevant. What is relevant is that the category name be clear and the first name is clear while your replacement name is not. --JeffW 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your second name could very well refer to other things with the term "crossover". Pikawil 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Licensed Corossovers". There are no many fanfic crossovers that would fit otherwise. Best to leave it to the licensing. Porphyric Hemophiliac§ 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Art supplies
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. Vegaswikian 07:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much larger category, Category:Art_materials, where the members of Category:Art supplies could belong. There are only 4 articles in Category:Art supplies (2 of which could be merged). Category:Art supplies was just created, while Category:Art materials has been around a while. Clubmarx | Talk 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carina22 09:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Solar system capitalization
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. Vegaswikian 06:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Vegaswikian 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom Mayumashu 06:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom --Greenmind 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:1980's films
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. Note, all article already have a by year category. Vegaswikian 20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this category poorly named (the punctuation gods will not be pleased), it duplicates the list at 1980s in film and the individual categories for each year, like Category:1981 films. - EurekaLott 22:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Mountain monuments and memorials AND Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States
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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 00:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused
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.
Category:Nobel Peace Prize Nominees
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 speedy renamed. Conscious 05:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Nobel Peace Prize nominees (caps / speedy?)
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.
Category:Hong Kong higher education policy researchers
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. Vegaswikian 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too narrow.
Delete per nom. CalJW 06:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Intersection with Philosophy
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. Note, article exists and is up for deletion. Vegaswikian 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Gym Class Heroes
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. Vegaswikian 06:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:User pascal
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to something reasonable like Category:Wikipedians who can program in Pascal. "User pas" is nonsense. --Cyde Weys 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Selective mutes
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. Vegaswikian 19:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Philosophasters
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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused.
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.
Category:Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Royal Danish-Norwegian Navy ships
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: Category:Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy ships.
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 Cat redirect. Vegaswikian 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Randomized content
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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 18:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused
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.
Category:Printed Media in Pakistan
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 Deleted as empty. Vegaswikian 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:North American tribes in Wisconsin
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:North American tribes
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Chinese born astronauts
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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 05:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment and vote. If a Chinese-born person flew as part of a Russian space mission, where would they be categorised? They would be a Chinese-born astronaut, but not part of the Chinese Space Programme, so might not qualify as a "Chinese astronaut". Iff there are such people, then I'd favour a rescoping of this to "Chinese-born astronauts for other space agencies" or similar, as a subcat of Category:Chinese astronauts - if not, delete. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct is to read "Chinese" as describing the person, not the space program. I suspect "Chinese-born astronauts for other space agencies" categories or the like would be too refined. Regards, David Kernow 12:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All Chinese astronauts belong here regardless of which rocket they flew in. CalJW 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sports teams by country
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. Vegaswikian 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is to apply "in country" to the names of sub-cats of Category:Sports teams by country. Sports teams in certain countries can have a majority of players on their team who were not born in that same country, such as the Toronto Argonauts, or Detroit Red Wings. Additionally the related category Category:Sports by country already uses "in country". These reasons make "in country" the most appropriate wording available, and the following renamings are proposed:
Category:British sports teams to Category:Sports teams in the United Kingdom
Category:Canadian sports teams to Category:Sports teams in Canada
Category:Norwegian sports teams to Category:Sports teams in Norway
Oppose The nationality of the players makes no difference to the nationality of the team. Hawkestone 13:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to [[:Category:Sports teams ofCountry]] otherwise sense of association with country too weak...? David Kernow 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Hindu politicians
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. Vegaswikian 06:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category violates NPOV according to me. There is no point of dividing up politicians into Hindu politicians and adds no value. Aksi_great (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it pointless an unencyclopaedic, its also completely unverifiable. Does anyone know whether Indira Gandhi, even, was Hindu? did she ever say she was? On what basis do we classify people as Hindus? Is Bal Thackeray still a Hindu, even though after his wife died he proclaimed that he was an atheist? The category's creator even added Maneka Gandhi, who's Sikh, and PA Sangma, who's Christian. If we leave this in, someone will go around randomly adding Indian politicians to the category, completing diluting the information value of the categories on pages with not much other information. Delete, delete, delete! Hornplease 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little informative value unless it is someone's POV, and we can't have POV here. — Ravikiran 07:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. BTW. The category has not been tagged for deletion. The voting might get invalidated on that ground. I don't know which tag to put, so Aksi, please out a tag. — Ravikiran 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had put the tag and also informed the user who made the category. But I think that he removed the CfD notice from the category page unknowingly. I have restored the tag. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What about Category:Roman Catholic politicians, Category:Jewish-American politicians? As long as these categories exist, Hindu politicians category also should exist. Allowing these religious divisons to exist and deleting the Hindu politicians category alone would be POV.Babub 08:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV. If we allow this, next we will have caste based categories. - Ganeshk(talk) 18:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Quite unnecessary.Bharatveer 05:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:User cool
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 already deleted - TexasAndroid 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion. Absolute rubbish. --Cyde Weys 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. David Kernow 22:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about the 'pov' part. We can simply delete this cateory for being useless and unencyclopedic unless the users have a body temprature lower than the rest of us :P --Cat out 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 relist for more opinions. Conscious 07:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is a child of Category:Manufactured goods. However its current name is ambiguous - How are these products defined as being of the country, nation, or state of Sweden? Switching to "goods manufactured in" is much more clearer and precise than the wording "products of", and would better follow the established category naming hierarchy of Category:Manufactured goods. Kurieeto 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is From what I can see, there is no established category naming hierarchy of Category:Manufactured goods, at least not for countries. The closest standard I can see in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is "Companys by country", which is "X of Foo". In any case, this is a re-scope of the category - Saab vehicles, for instance, are/are soon to be manufactured in Germany. SeventyThree(Talk) 16:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, by naming hierarchy I meant the "Manufactured goods" part of Category:Manufactured goods. Introducing "Products" as a category name does not follow that line of wording. Kurieeto 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes a lot more sense. Sometimes I can't see the wood for the trees! That would make a renaming without changing the scope Category:Manufactured goods of Sweden. If you want to change the scope of the category, it's going to mean some work to check what should stay in the category and what should go. SeventyThree(Talk) 05:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Elizabethan Ireland biographies to Category:Elizabethan Ireland people per below
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. Vegaswikian 06:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category relates to articles about people, rather than articles about biographies, so the cat name should reflect that. I would support a rename to Category:People of Elizabethan Ireland or Category:People in Elizabethan Ireland if people think one of those would be better. - Nzd(talk) 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their English and Welsh contemporaries are being listed in Category:Tudor people. Should we add the Irish there as well and mention that the Tudors were also Lords and Kings of Ireland? User:Dimadick
Comment: No, I wouldn't go with that. Ireland was a separate kingdom, and the cat is to gather biogs of people involved in its reconquest - it's a complicated history, and putting them together gives some coherent overview.--shtove 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Real-life Superheroes
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. Vegaswikian 06:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's back again, after being deleted here. Our resolution last time was to delete the category and create the article Real-life superhero, which easily became a home for all the noteworthy stubs that were there before. I haven't spoke to the person who recreated the category, but I'm guessing the problem is Terrifica, who was the only non-stub article in the previous category. So the category may have been recreated to handle the global article and her. I'm guessing that if we just delete the category without dealing with (but not deleting) the Terrifica article, it'll happen again. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person that created the catagory. I didn't know it've been created before. In fact, I created an account just to create this catagory. I also tried to expand this catagory by writing an article about Captain Jackson, but got deleted soon afterwards. You can see the The JPS talk page. You guys don't know about the real-life superheroes doesn't mean they are not newsworthy/insignifacance/whatsoever. Newspaper have been talking about them, and they really insert hope into the society.
Arthur 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, just to be clear, no one opposes a global article about real-life superheroes, but most people are less enthusiastic about a bunch of stubs based on occasional articles. (For example, Captain Jackson now makes sense on the Real-life superhero page.) The category makes less sense if there are not a lot of articles, and it might encourage people to write articles bout themselves. So what we've been trying to figure out is the best way to present this information, not necessarily delete it.--Mike Selinker 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV name. Just call her an activist or something. Hawkestone 13:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Vossanovao< 13:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Fictional British knights
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. Vegaswikian 17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's only existed for 5 days. Maybe we should give it a chance to be populated? SeventyThree(Talk) 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Category:Fictional Dames Commander of the British Empire and Category:Fictional Knights Commander of the British Empire, both listed below. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was populated with two articles when it was created, and both of them sit happily in Category:Fictional knights. It's been repopulated but I'd suggest it's not a worthwhile subdivision and those articles should be moved to the next level up. —Whouk (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Philippine journalists to Category:Filipino journalists.
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. Vegaswikian 06:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on March 26 but never listed here. Part of a trend to rename Philippine foo to Filipino foo. Tim! 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
relisted from May 5 for more opinionsTim! 09:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 keep. Conscious 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant - contains one article and one subcategory. Shiroi Hane 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mefge Category:Tokyo Mew Mew characters into this category instead; TMM should link to the cat :-> where its characters are. Septentrionalis 23:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This way round allows the characters to be grouped together in a fictional characters category and Category:Tokyo Mew Mew is a necessary parent for it. It would be odd to have the Category:Tokyo Mew Mew characters feeding only into a fictional characters category. There really should be a bridging category in the category tree between the Tokyo Mew Mew article and the category for individual characters. Putting in a "See also this category" link into articles is messy and should generally be avoided. TheGrappler 19:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A separate character cat can sit under the Fictional Characters category tree, which the main can cannot. The TMM Char category cannot properly sit directly in several of the partent cats for the TMM cate itself. They serve separate roles, and thus should both remain, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Feuds with 50 Cent
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.
Delete as BJAODN. --Zimbabweed 09:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately delete'--- Weak article and just garbage talk LILVOKA 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless listcruft (categorycruft?).--Ted87 00:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately delete no-one cares.
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.
Category:The Apprentice UK Candidates
Category:The Apprentice (UK) Candidates
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 both speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both (or should that be You're fired! as I'm told that's what Sir Alan Sugar / Donald Trump say...?). David Kernow 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Television genres;TV Single Dads
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 Merged. Vegaswikian 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong namespace, merge to TV Single Dads. Conscious 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Neuroscience disciplines
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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 18:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
relisted from May 5 as not tagged for deletionTim! 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant; that's what the main Neuroscience category is for; and is sparsely populated - move its one subcategory to Neuroscience or Neurophysiology. Outriggr 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Sumahoy 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Zoz (t) 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Fantasy books by milieu to Category:Fantasy series
relisted from May 4 for more opinionsTim! 08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 both. Conscious 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- One is a duplicate of the other. See also similar discussion on merging Category:Science fiction novels by milieu to Category:Science fiction series. MakeRocketGoNow 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - however I don't agree that one is a dup of the other. Milieu speaks of the setting of the narrative, i.e. "where" it takes place. So it is really a 'in context' a way of saying 'by world'. However the subtleties of this are lost on most. So, merge. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A series of books is a group of books that someone publishes and calls a series. Also one could pick a location and find all the books set in that location. How is the difference "subtle"? On the English Wikipedia it is hard to understand because:
Most people don't know what milieu means.
Category:Fantasy series has subcategories that are not series (e.g. Middle-earth books).
Some series don't appear to have categories (e.g. Category:Harry Potter books includes the two charity books, which aren't part of the series).
However I think we can fix these other problems and leave Category:Fantasy books by milieu and Category:Fantasy series separate. BrianJasonDrake 08:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename without using "milieu". David Kernow 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC), simplified 22:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename both. Rename the former to Category:Fantasy books by fictional universe. Rename the latter to Category:Series of fantasy books, and subcategorize under the former where applicable. Not all books set in a series' fictional world are entries in that series (for example, The Science of Discworld, or the various Star Trek and Star Wars technical and reference books). "Fantasy series" also covers series in other media, such as film and television, so Category:Fantasy series should be either deleted or kept as a parent for fantasy series in all media. -Sean Curtin 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename both - what Sean Curtin said. They are two related but different groupings. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:People In, Out, and Allegedly in the Closet
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 speedy deleted. — May. 14, '06 [19:27] <freakofnurxture|talk>
If you can get past the bad grammar, you'll see the last sentence even admits that it's all just speculation. Dismas|(talk) 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, it states that those whose "closetedness" is rumored or speculated may also be added into the category.
Delete. Categories are not for unsourced speculation. -Sean Curtin 06:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
they are not unsourced, they are based on mention of such debates within the articles for those persons. elton john is gay and was in the closet, there is controversy over tom cruise's sexuality as parodied on south park and mention in his article.
They are unsourced in the sense that there is no way of attaching a note to each entry in the category with a source. Sourced statements in the articles are fine, but it's not technicly possible use footnotes and references to explain why entries are in a category. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are categories for gay people (such as Category:Gay actors) which articles can be placed in, this is unnecessary and speculative. Tim! 08:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tim! Lbbzman 14:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Vegaswikian 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original name is rather clumsy. In addition, the main article for the category is located at British Rail. jareha(comments) 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per nom. gidonb 18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:United Nations Peacekeeping
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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 18:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Unused, blanked by creator. Conscious 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, duplicate of Category:UN peacekeeping missions and operations -- ProveIt(talk) 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ProveIt. - Nzd(talk) 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:U.S. National Security Council history
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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Unused. Conscious 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as misnamed (per policy regarding abbreviations). A similar cat could exist as a subcat of Category:United States National Security Council but I don't think a rename is particularly necessary, given that it would leave the parent with no articles. - Nzd(talk) 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:User:Armedblowfish/unvisitedlinks
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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 18:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Self-reminders should be created in the userspace. Unused as of now. Conscious 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Nzd(talk) 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Catholic Converts to Category:Catholic converts
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 to Category:Roman Catholic converts. Vegaswikian 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Capitalization. Scranchuse 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy after question. Vegaswikian 04:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this should be Category:Roman Catholic converts? Mayumashu 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roman Catholic converts per William Allen Simpson. Nzd(talk) 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roman Catholic converts per William Allen Simpson. Golfcam 01:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 18:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: Category:GSL Alumni 126. empty, cleared by creator
Overcategorization. Delete both, since the contents duplicate Category:Galatasaray Alumni (which probably should be renamed, along with most of the categories in Category:Wikipedians by high school). - EurekaLott 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Galatasaray Alumni 126 and Category:GSL Alumni 126 (which contains a user page and a userbox). Nzd(talk) 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 Speedy rename. Vegaswikian 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Grammatical Point - shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Electric fishes? Calilasseia 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I'm aware, "fish" is a plural of "fish" (and probably the plural I'd prefer). Regards, David Kernow 02:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Childrens' clothing
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 Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nzd(talk) 23:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Erotic entertainment
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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 18:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Mexican-French people
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, blanked by creator
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.
Category:National forests of Puerto Rico
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 Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:National Forests in Colorado
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misnamed duplicate. - Nzd(talk) 22:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Managers in Spain by club
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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nzd(talk) 22:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Mexican Germans
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused
Delete If it is unused why is it here? Even if it is used how manu prominate Mexican Germans are there in wikipedia? Not really relevent.
I'm sure it must have seemed like a good idea at the time ... -- ProveIt(talk) 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Internet Radio
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 Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Category is empty and already exists with correct capitalisation. Seems like an obvious speedy. - Nzd(talk) 22:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Jewish-Scottish people
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Vegaswikian 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awkwardly titled; should be moved to the name of the Army command itself. Paul 02:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Nzd(talk) 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Jewish-Welsh people
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 speedy deleted (c1).Conscious 05:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Vegaswikian 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. SCHZMO✍ 02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Seahen 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carina22 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Vegaswikian 06:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unnecessary. SCHZMO✍ 02:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Merge to Category:Roman Catholic Saints -- most of those in category:Saints are not recognized by any other religion than Roman Catholicism, and belong in their own category. Remember, "catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are not the same. And Roman Catholic Saints are always with a capital 'S'. Keep Saints as the umbrella category. --William Allen Simpson 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per William Allen Simpson. -Sean Curtin 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.