< April 4	April 6 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to both parent categories in each case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Uneeded categories as there is only one page in it. All the other "Telephone numbers in (country)" articles with only one page are listed Category:Telephone numbers by country. Tavix | Talk 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge (Turkey anyway) which is presumably what nom meant. Can noms please check these properly? Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry about that. Tavix | Talk 23:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all of them (some need to be marked, which I will do after this post) to their respective parent cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. the wub "?!" 21:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian icons to Unknown

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is not for icons from the Ukrainian. But it appears to be for Eastern Orthodox icons in the Ukraine. I think a rename to make the religious intent clearer would make the name less ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems perfectly clear. Not all may have been painted in the Ukraine (though origins are typically uncertain), not all are Eastern Orthodox (one is Eastern Catholic) & one is no longer in the Ukraine, so no easy alternatives, but I just don't see the problem. Likely to expand. Would we have a problem with Category:Russian icons, not that that has been set up? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Category:Russian icons would be a problem since icons is ambiguous. Would Category:Ukrainian religious icons be clearer? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See icon and Russian icons - this sense is long-established as the primary meaning, which ought to be good enough here. "religious" is too vague; Eastern Christian would be the best alternative, but this will confuse as many as it helps, I expect. No one seeing the category page is going to be unclear on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Icon is not ambiguous at WP - there is a primary use and this is the use reflected in the cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Eastern Orthodox Church icons of Ukraine, since there are other religious denominations that have icons that may be in the Ukraine, and other non-religious icons that are also in the Ukraine. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, not all these are "Eastern Orthodox Church icons of Ukraine", one at least is Eastern Catholic. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not ambiguous. If it includes more than one denomination, i do not see why that;s a problem. DGG (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. the wub "?!" 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Under-populated category, requested to be populated since November 2006 (admin only). Not something that is likely to be used. Was nominated recently in a chaotic batch closed as "keep, without prejudice to smaller/individual noms", but this one should probably go. (Was also involved in a nom back in '07 but this was only to shorten "C&VG" to "VG"). –xeno (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The category seems too specific to function without active participation from editors. It's lack of updates shows how inaccurate it can be. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. the wub "?!" 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lightweight markup language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Lightweight markup languages

Rename for plural. Might qualify for speedy, I dunno. — CharlotteWebb 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be used for articles about multiple different languages, so it would certainly qualify for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Speedy rename. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. the wub "?!" 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mono albums to Category:Mono (Japanese band) albums

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article, and to avoid confusion about albums recorded in mono (instead of stereo). Lugnuts (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - there is also Mono (UK band). Occuli (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Districts of England Erik9 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Districts in England to Category:Districts of England

Nominator's rationale: 'in' to 'of' as per sister cats. ninety:one 16:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. the wub "?!" 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grand Hustle albums to Category:Grand Hustle Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Grand Hustle Records and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label. Tassedethe (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. the wub "?!" 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gramavision albums to Category:Gramavision Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Gramavision Records and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label. Tassedethe (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. the wub "?!" 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Honest Don's albums to Category:Honest Don's Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Honest Don's Records and naming style of the category Category:Albums by record label. Tassedethe (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: officially, upmerge. in reality, delete as empty. Kbdank71 15:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Upmerge as needed. OCAT on a Hot Tin Roof -- Tennessee Williams wrote poetry? Who knew?? Apparently he wrote a grand total of 2 poems during his lifetime. I was surprised to learn of this -- and disappointed to find that the "article" about one of them was a one-sentence micro-stub which has sat there for 4 years without anybody taking an interest in it and expanding it. (I've Prodded it, we'll see what happens.) It seems silly (not to mention misleading) to have a category that doesn't really deliver the goods. If the stub is kept, it can be placed in Category:Works by Tennessee Williams. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean upmerge, then? Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be just fine with me, I've changed my nom accordingly. Cgingold (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only if the stub remains, as child category of the parent Category:Poetry by author. Lugnuts (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know if there's any sort of rule that has been agreed to with respect to poetry that calls for every poem article to be given an author-category? I know some things get that sort of treatment, but I didn't see any note to that effect at Category:Poetry by author. Cgingold (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't find anything specific for poetry. Happy to upmerge to works in this case (assuming the stub isn't deleted soon...!) Lugnuts (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think it goes back to whether the author of a poem is a defining characteristic of the poem (which is surely the case). Perhaps TW's other alleged poem would be worth tracking down. (OCat on a hot tin roof - inspired.) Occuli (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page mentions 6 TW poems ... Occuli (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to works & American poems, if kept. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an overall and consistent scheme of categorization "by author" which is extensive and simple when used with "work type". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (Note:Kevinalewis is the category's creator.) Cgingold (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cosmic Philosophy (or possibly delete & upmerge articles). In all honesty, I'm not entirely certain what should be done here, as I had never heard of this rather obscure corner of the Occult until I tripped over it purely by accident the other day. However, it does not seem appropriate to have a category named for Max Theon (although he is, to be sure, central to the discussion). After a quick read thru of all of the articles (mostly rather short), I've reached the tentative conclusion that what I have suggested is probably the best option -- that is, if the category should be retained at all. (Note: If renamed as suggested, I believe Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor would need to be removed from the category.) And with that, I throw the discussion open to more knowledgeable (hopefully) editors. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) (Also notified WikiProject Occult) Cgingold (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templatize and delete - appears to be a small category for what based on the meagre text of the articles is a defunct occultist movement, with little or no likelihood of expansion. The articles I looked at were already pretty well interlinked so the lead article could probably serve as an appropriate navigational hub, but people seem to like templates for this sort of thing (although failure to create a template should not IMHO serve as justification for retaining the category). Otto4711 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it seems to me after a swift browse round that there are plenty more articles that could be legitimately placed in Category:Cosmic Philosophy or Category:Cosmic Movement (or perhaps something more general, to include the various brotherhoods of Luxor, hermetic and otherwise, but less general than the parents of Category:Max Theon). Occuli (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge to Category:Esoteric cosmology is enough. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, According to the associated template "This user is of Zaza ancestry", thus it is "Wikipedians by ancestry" category which have all been deleted previously as not fostering collaboration. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this & all the others except the birthdays. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is automatically added to user pages who add a userbox stating "This user enjoys siesta". Not encyclopedic in the least, could not possibly foster collaboration. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a "who collect" category (all of which were renamed here), is too narrow for collaboration, and is borderline completely unencyclopedic. Can not foster collaboration. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep--Aervanath (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it can't foster collaboration. We have previously deleted a category for Wikipedians' real birthdays (see here) and I can't think how the rationale could be any different for this category. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this category (in conjunction with an edit to ((User Wikipedian for))) to keep track of people to give WikiLove—on a given day I check the category and give a ((cookie))-like message to some people. Maybe it doesn't "help" anything, but I don't see it hurting the encyclopedia either (and I certainly don't see how it goes against "fostering collaboration"). Can you name something that the category is actually hurting? (Also please note: the contents of the category right now don't really mean anything; the contents change every day, since it's populated by a conditional statement within a widely transcluded template.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't this information be on a Wikipedia space page instead? As for it not hurting the encyclopedia, I would mention WP:NOHARM. That is, keeping this could set precedent to keep non-collaborative categories, and from what I can tell going directly against the rationale used to delete the real birthdays category, setting a double standard, which I'd like to avoid if at all possible. User categories are supposed to be for collaboration, and while your use of this category is certainly nice, where do we draw the line? Keeping this opens the door to allow categories for seeking out and congratulating others for any number of things- Why not a category linked to a userbox that reveals the anniversary of their wedding, for instance? (or even something trivial, like first XfD nom?) I realize that users are often congratulated on their talk pages for their Wiki-anniversary and for real birthdays, and I have no problem with that-my problem is the use of categories in doing so, when categories are supposed to be encylopedic. Also, if nothing else, I think some sort of rename would be beneficial, as the title isn't clear as to if it is Wikipedians whose real birthday it is (which upon reading the category description makes clear this is not the case) or its intended purpose of containing Wikipedians whose wiki-anniversary it is. When I originally found the cat I assumed the former until I read the description. VegaDark (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Couldn't this information be on a Wikipedia space page instead?" As far as I know, that is impossible. The page updates itself automatically, which AFAIK can only be done with a category and a transcluded template. Likewise, it's not a permanent record of information (like a regular page would be); it's just something that people's name shows up in for 24 hours or so, whichi allows User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display to show a little thing, and then I can go identify those people and send them a message. The next day, their names disappear (if not on their own, then when I null-edit their userpage).

And whether or not it's in "Wikipedia space" is irrelevant; categories are routinely used for behind-the-scenes stuff that users don't care about. For one random example, Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates.

Renaming it would not be a problem (as long as you remember to also update ((User Wikipedian for))—remember, this category is not just something that sits around by itself, but is part of several related templates), but I don't see any good reason to delete it. So far, most people have liked getting my silly little message, and every day if I make one person feel better about being a Wikipedia user then I have done my job. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you mention that "it doesn't hurt anything" is not a good argument, per WP:NOHARM. Well, your main argument is that keeping this would "set a precedent," so I feel obligated to direct you to WP:ALLORNOTHING. (If you get to cite WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, then hey, so do I.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can manually add themselves to a Wikipedia-space page if they wish to be congratulated, listing 365 days and users can add their name under the day that applies to them. And yes, I know many categories such as Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates exist- That isn't a user category though, and user categories have their own guidelines. It actually benefits the encyclopedia to categorize those templates as well, while there is no encyclopedic benefit to categorizing users whose wiki-anniversary it is. Also, I don't believe arguing that it will set precedent (which undeniably all XfDs do to some extent) equates to an "all or nothing" argument. We don't have to keep all future similar categories if this is kept, obviously. It would IMO set a double standard. Nobody has yet explained how this is any different from the real birthdays category in terms of rationale to keep. Perhaps consensus on this type of category has changed, but I would consider the rationale behind that debate still sound. As for a rename, I'd propose Category:Wikipedians whose Wiki-anniversary is today or something along those lines.VegaDark (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should mention, for anyone who's not familiar with what this category does, that a deletion of this category will also be, in effect a deletion of User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display, because that template will not work without this category. Please consider that when closing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is useful for wishing Wikipedians well when it's their Wiki-birthday. Today is my Wiki-birthday, and 2 people came by my talk page to say happy birthday, and it made my day. This isn't like nationalities or plush-preference, which could foster factionalism; this is purely a way to spread wiki-love on the anniversary of your editing. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is really the only way to do it. Not quite the same as the real birthdays, & ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fairly certain this is the only way, short of creating a bot (which is significantly more work, for no apparent pay-off, and is far more likely to screw up and require constant maintenance). If anyone else knows of a way to make templates like User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display and User:Rjanag/DYKfuture automatically update themselves without using a category, I would love to hear of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the least, this probably needs a rename to remove the word "current". That aside, if the category creator is suggesting that this is to be used as a "source" for bots to mine for notices, then that's an interesting idea. How exactly is this intended to work? - jc37 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "current" because, as I said above, it's not a permanent record; on a given day, it only shows the users whose "wikibirthday" is that given day. As for "to be used as a source for bots to mine for notices"... well, a bot doesn't mine it for notices, I mine it for notices, and every morning/afternoon-ish I post a brief message to people's talk pages to wish them "happy birthday". There is no "is to be used", it is already being used.

As for how it works...basically, in the userbox ((User Wikipedian for)) I inserted a conditional that does nothing 364 days a year, but on the one day that's your "wikibirthday" it adds you to the category. Then a template that I have transcluded on my userpage, User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display, uses the magic word ((PAGESINCATEGORY)) to automatically show me how many people are in the category for that day. I go to the category and post a message to each person (after checking their contribs...for example, if it's someone who's only made like 5 edits and hasn't been around in years, I don't bother). The messages are like this: [1][2][3][4] By the next day, the conditional within ((User Wikipedian for)) is no longer met, so that user's userpage automatically removes itself from this category, and the counter transcluded on my page automatically updates the number. It's all done more or less automatically without needing a bot. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a "bot mined" category, except that instead of having a bot do it, you're doing it manually : )

For me, this is a tough call, since I am a strong proponent for things which not only directly help collaboration, but also indirectly help collaboration. And I think that this might be considered one of those "indirect" collaborative tools. That said, if we keep this, it can suggestively open the door to quite a few things which are likely quite a bit less than even indirectly collaborative.

So I'd say "keep", as long as it's not considered an overall consensus for more of these types of cats to be created. (Which is, I think, the concern of the nominator, as well.) - jc37 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but did you look at the extended discussion below the nom? This category is part of an automated process that updates itself daily (it's the inner workings for the template at User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display core), it's not just a list that sits around doing nothing. Please make sure you understand what it actually does before !voting, because it is different than a normal category. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about his comment indicated that he didn't read the extended discussion? The category being non-collaborative is still entirely valid reasoning to delete, unless you agree with jc37 in that it is indirectly collaborative, which I personally don't buy in to, unless promoting Wikilove can somehow be interpreted as such. I'd like to read an expanded rationale regarding how this can be considered indirectly collaborative. VegaDark (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a way of recognizing and thanking people who have been making valuable contributions for a long time (that's part of the reason I don't give a message to people who happened to join on this day but have only made like 10 contribs). As such, I don't think it can really be compared to a random list of real-world birthdays; it's closer to being something like a DYK medal, another recognition of contributions.
    - As for your suggestion that I make a Wikipedia space spage and people add themselves to it every day...that is clearly never gonna happen. First of all, most people did not know about this category until I sent them their birthday/anniversary/whatever-you-like-to-call-it message. Secondly, seriously, who adds themselves to a page asking to get congratulated? I think WikiLove is much nicer when it's not solicited.
    - Finally, no offense, but I do believe the "delete" votes are based on a misunderstanding of what the category is, and likewise I believe this entire CfD could have been avoided if you had just left me a message asking what it is and how it works, rather than throwing it in with a group of other categories you nominated en masse. If this category were what you originally thought it is—a useless list that just sits around and looks pretty—then yes, it would clearly be a candidate for deletion. But that's not what it is; it's a tool for keeping track of Wikipedians' contributions and for congratulating them. It is not at all replaceable by any of the "options" raised above (a Wikipedia-space page, or a bot) and it is being used for a process that people appreciate, unlike the other country music and plushie categories you've nommed that just sit around doing nothing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this is collaborative in the slightest? WP is WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This is not a social networking site. While some social interaction occurs, as is normal in any human activity, especially a collaborative effort - WP is not intended to mirror a real world social network (like Myspace, Facebook, and others). Wikipedia birthdays, anniversaries, etc. are not relevant - and I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just trying to help build an encyclopedia. Wikilove may have its place, but rather than loving the unloved, I would certainly prefer if its distributors would dispense sources to the unsourced articles instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is collaborative in that it makes some editors feel good about being members of the community; I've already been told by several people that my silly little message helped keep them motivated to contribute. Maybe giving someone a friendly message is "not relevant" to the encyclopedia, but it is absolutely no less relevant than giving them a ((cookie)), ((smile)), ((glass of milk)) ... the list goes on.

The repeated claim that something like this is distracting me from sourcing, encyclopedia-building, etc., is totally unfounded. It takes me about 10 seconds in the morning to check the category and give messages to the one or two people who are appearing in it on a given day. If you are concerned about wasting time that would have been better spent improving articles...then well, I hate to say it, but this CfD itself has wasted more of all our our time than a month's worth of maintaining this category has. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories like this are not the sort of thing, but good contributors like Rjanag use it to encourage community feeling, and thus help collaboration on the encyclopedia. DGG (talk)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a 0-level category which have been unanimously deleted previously as not fostering collaboration. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a subcategory of a non-ISO national dialect of English which have been unanimously merged to their parent category previously. See here for related precedent. Lone member is already in the parent category, so a merge is unnecessary. I'd support deleting the parent category as well since I don't think it helps Wikipedia to know who speaks regional variants of English (I think knowing they speak English alone is sufficient, no need to distingush "New Zealand English" vs. "American English", for instance), but that argument is best saved for its own nomination. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted per G7. –xeno (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, "who like" country music is unencyclopedic and does not support collaboration. We already have Category:Wikipedians who listen to country music, we definitely don't need this as well. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. - There was already a similiar category? Well I should have known. Go ahead and delete it. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, "users" is an improper naming convention, and we have previously deleted all "Wikipedians by medical condition" categories. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is completely unencyclopedic. Additionally, "Strange" is improperly capitalized. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a 0-level category which have been unanimously deleted previously as not fostering collaboration. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a "Wikipedians by operating system" category, all of which were previously deleted here as inappropriate categories for Wikipedia. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a "Wikipedians who support/oppose" category, which have been unanimously deleted previously as being inappropriate categories for Wikipedia. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none of these categories contribute to the collaborative goal of the project. "I like it when people wish me a happy Wiki-birthday" is not a reason for keeping. Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - when I made the above comment all of the user categories were part of a single nomination. Rather than I clutter the discussion with multiple identical !votes, please note that my comment in this CFD applies equally to all of the above user category discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 5

Category:Telephone numbers

Category:Ukrainian icons

Category:Current video game events

Category:Lightweight markup language

Category:Mono albums

Category:Districts in England

Category:Grand Hustle albums

Category:Gramavision albums

Category:Honest Don's albums

Category:Poetry by Tennessee Williams

Occult philosophy / movement

Category:Zaza Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians interested in resting

Category:Wikipedians interested in collecting hide plushies

Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays

Category:User ace-0

Category:User en-nz-N

Category:Wikipedians who like country music

Category:Users with tinnitus

Category:Wikipedians who like Strange things

Category:User sc-0

Category:Wikipedians who use gNewSense GNU/Linux

Category:Wikipedians opposed to date-autoformatting