< March 2008	May 2008 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Seattle, Washington for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy rename --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:06, 1 May 2008 (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: Speedy delete - Now meets C1, hopefully won't be recreated. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Empty, but hasn't been empty for 4 days so does not yet meet C1. Improper naming convention, and redundant to Category:User sq. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:07, 1 May 2008 (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: speedy delete per criterion G7 (author request). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is for Wikipedians who use a made up code as described at User:Asenine/Find Code to make it easier to find their contribs in search engine searches. Not useful to categorize this. See similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wikipedians by userspace project. Master Redyva (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speedy delete per the topical index... only per WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Interesting, but doesn't seem to be very useful as a category. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I have considered this, and agree. I am the author of the category, so go ahead and delete it. :) asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (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. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiOtters are elusive creatures that are endangered, much like the WikiDragon. They help a different user out by editing or simply being friendly". Fringe category of WikiGnomes and WikiFairies, similar categories were deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete &/or exterminate. Master Redyva (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the inclusion criteria are too general to form the basis of useful categorisation: friendliness is a great trait in editors, but it's not really something that's well-suited to categorisation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This user is into popping and specializes in {hitting, ticking, botting, etc}". At minimum needs rename to match naming conventions at Category:Wikipedian dancers, but my first choice would be to delete as too narrow for collaboration as it appears to be a single-article category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename to Category:Wikipedian poppers if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VegaDark's WikiWisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename One article for the topic, but there are likely articles about notable dancers, as well as articles that are related that would be of interest to those interested in popping (I have no idea if that just made sense.. probably need to go to bed and get some sleep). -- Ned Scott 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per single-article category. --Kbdank71 14:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Single article category. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this line of thinking we'd never get new categories, because there would never be a starting point for them. Very likely there are tons of other Wikipedians that would place themselves in this category. Considering this category was made only a few weeks ago, I fail to see how that's any sort of a logical argument. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, you mean there's only one article for Popping.. I just got that as soon as I hit save. Forgive me, it's the end of the day :) -- Ned Scott 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first I assumed there was only one article for "Popping" as well, but it seems we are all mistaken, according to Template:Popping (dance). -- Ned Scott 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian poppers or Category: Wikipedians interested in popping. Seems like a good use of a collaborative category. Ned pointed out that there are multiple articles all linked through the template. —Scouter Sig 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The dance styles linked from ((Popping (dance))) seem not to be actual variants of popping, but rather related styles which are often "integrated". This, along with the fact that all 7 users in the category are inactive (only two have edited this year, making a total of 4 edits in the past three months), leads me to weakly support deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (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 which defaults to keep. The discussion is about evenly split and there is no overwhelming argument in favor of either view. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like this nom, this category is not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, pretty sure we went over this before at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 20. I see no new arguments since then, and the keep rationale is still valid. Highlights that sum up my own feelings are "Clearly a few administrators are using this, even though it was just introduced. There is therefore some opinion that it is useful, and more might come to consider it so. Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all. On the other hand, perhaps I could use a wikitrout myself from time to time. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)" and "Strongest possible keep and endeavor to populate with as many admins as possible. It's great for the project to show that admins are open to good-natured reproof and don't take themselves too seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)" -- Ned Scott 05:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Upmerge~~ to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. That you are an administrator has nothing to do with your willingness to have others be frank and/or funny with you. Also note that it says "Slapping may only be done by other administrators in this category" which is blatant elitism. (Well, it is a subcat of the general user category, so I suppose I could slap an admin if I needed/wanted to.) —ScouterSig 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if consensus to delete parent category. If parent category is not deleted, this should be upmerged. —Scouter Sig 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge (whichever) per the same points made in past discussions. I've no problem with deleting harmless UCATs when nobody cares about them, but this is just uncongenial. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found one more uCFD, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008#Trout categories. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories are not tagged for deletion.. I'll tag them now. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think a long history of consensus from the inclusionists has determined that this category's not going anywhere. Procedural keep.--WaltCip (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slap nominator with a... ehm, sorry, I mean keep. Clearly facilitates collaboration and a harmonious editing environment by showing that not all Wikipedians are averse to constructive criticism sprinkled with a bit of ~~sea life~~, um, sorry, humor. Also see Hiding's closing comments from the previous nomination. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per scoutersig, since my first choice of delete is, per Waltcip, not an option. --Kbdank71 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February_2008#Category:Rouge admins, which established that admin-only joke categories are divisive and unhelpful. Additionally, this should be considered as an all-inclusive category, unless one supports the concept of admins who are not open to constructive criticism. This category's sentiments are clearly conveyed through the userbox; there is no use for such a grouping of admins. For those who cite the previous discussions, note that consensus can change. Horologium (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether humor categories are helpful or not has always been an undecidable debate, since both the proposed benefits and proposed detriments they may have are unmeasurable. What is decisively true, however, is that repeatedly running pages through XfD until you get a favorable outcome is disruptive, a form of gaming the system, and should not be tolerated. --erachima talk 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each time this category has been nominated, it has been by a different user, and in this case, the nominator did not participate in the previous two discussions, so it's not a case of abusing the process by constantly renominating it. Additionally, it's been three months since the last time the category was discussed; it's not like it's a weekly event. Horologium (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even administrators need disipline, especially if they broke the encyclopedia, made a really bad April Fools' edit, or disruptively moved a page, and I think you know who I'm talking about. ~A H1^(TCU) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Directly useful to the building of an encyclopedia by helping admins encourage others to point out there mistakes. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or Upmerge (2nd choice). The nominator's point that keeping these rediculous categories while deleting the Lazy Wikipedians category is a double standard is well taken. It is a double standard, there is absolutely no use to either category, but just because this one is funny, it's been kept in the past and will be kept again (or perhaps upmerged in a best case expectation). My only real hope out of this nomination is to see this upmerged to the other category, so similar to the Rogue admins category, we can narrow down these crap categories from 2 to 1. Upmerging makes sense, as there is no reason to distiguish admins from the other category. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious Keep. I think this kind of category helps to establish the personality of the administrator and therefore the appropriate tone for dealing with them. So many rows start with people taking offence at well meant comments and signals to avoid this benefit WP considerably. --BozMo talk 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - humorous way of saying "admins aware that they screw up occasionally/admins who are fallible" Viridae ^Talk 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a social networking site (not even a little bit). While users are free to enjoy piscine contact and are welcome to invite trout-slapping, categorizing such users does not serve any useful purpose for project-building. This does not even further community-building, unless users get some sort of editorial level up from perusing others who share their hobby. It should also be noted that trout-slapping is animal abuse, and can escalate to iguana-throwing. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:50:34, 03 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was funny at the time. I may even have been in it at some point. But consensus about joke categories does seem to be changing to discourage them. So, per Pathoschild (a paragon of seriousness! :) ), delete ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or upmerge (2nd choice). There are two main problems with joke categories of this type. First, the category is used as a bottom-of-the-page notice, and there is never any real reason to browse through the category itself; there is no reason to specifically seek out a random person for trout-slapping. Second, humour, like beauty, is in the eye of beholder. If one joke category is allowed, it becomes really hard to argue against Wikipedia administrators open to being gored by a bull, Wikipedia administrators open to being nibbled on by pirhanas, Wikipedia administrators open to receiving a low-velocity impact on the wrist by a blunt object composed of aluminum, weighing no more than 1.347 kg, in a manner that does not jeopardise the physical or mental health and integrity of the administrator or any persons, living, dead, or otherwise, within a 32 m radius, to occur only when Mercury is in alignment with Mars, and (finally) Category:LOLZ!!! HA E_*$(&B# HSPD*#$ }. If we take this category in its more serious form, as the equivalent of a category for admins who are open to constructive criticism, then we end up with a category that should be all-inclusive. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Not opposed to UpMerging if the parent cat still exists.) - As noted above, in general, humour isn't used in category space. If you want to make a note that you're open to criticism, please, feel free to note that on your userpage. But there's just no need for a category grouping for this. As noted above, it should be an all-inclusive category. That aside, there simply is no need for an "admin exclusive" version of this category. If it's about being open to criticism, surely it shouldn't matter if you "have the tools" or not. - jc37 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. Enigma ^message 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a great way to let admins know when they have made mistakes in a friendly, polite way. This defiantly does more good than bad. Tiptoety ^talk 01:21, 7 May 2008 (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 which defaults to keep. The discussion is about evenly split and there is no overwhelming argument in favor of either view. Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like this nom, this category is not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. --Charitwo ^talk 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per similar arguments for the above nom for #Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per recent precedent and the fact that no new arguments were made. Note that here, almost every other joke category except these trout categories have been deleted. —Scouter Sig 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the precedent to and the need need to [[delete joke categories. Said category does not aid in collaboration, nor even in community building. —Scouter Sig 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see above. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted this above, but I'll repeat it here since this uCFD was directly linked to this category, Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/January 2008#Trout categories. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the admin category above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if the admins category above is merged into this one. Delete otherwise. --Kbdank71 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike its admin-only analogue, this category is not divisive, but it is equally pointless, and there is a long list of precedents for eliminating joke categories (here), and those who wish to express their sentiment can create a userbox instead of a category. There is no possible collaborative purpose for this category (the same can be said for the admin analogue), and is nothing more than a MySpace-y bit of nonsense. Horologium (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disruptive, process-gaming renomination of a category previously kept. --erachima talk
Delete per Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It prevents us Wikipedians from oversillying ourselves and to stay on task without unintentionally nuking 0.35453545...% of the encyclopedia. ~A H1^(TCU) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero use to encyclopedia building, it is an absolute shame this will be kept as this is one of the only categories that has ever gone directly against established precedent to delete joke/nonsense categories, simply because enough users come in to say ILIKEIT. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the list page made from a minority of Wikipedians that frequent uCfD? Not that the page is all bad, but the topical index is often abused to show artificial support for certain trends. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ScouterSig--Bedford 08:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ah, but EVERYBODY deserves a trout slapping, not just the people in this category! That is, not being in this category should not absolve you from being slapped at any given time.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody deserves a trout slapping, but not everybody is open to it ;) -- Ned Scott 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to WP:AGF and believe that since this category does not preclude or harm any of the purposes of categories, the author and those who have joined must find it useful. If nothing else it keeps us from being too dry and boring. That alone is useful. Jim Miller (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may not be aware of this, but this category was created as a rather POINTy response to the first UCFD on the admin-only category (above) which was itself a POINTy creation sparked by a specific discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit frustrating when people don't seem to understand that you can't violate WP:POINT by simply making a point, but only if you disrupt in the process of making that point. Making a point in itself isn't a bad thing. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Horologium for pointing me in that direction. I went back and reviewed the prior CfD. As Ned Scott points out above, there is nothing wrong or against policy by making a non-disruptive point. I also went back and reviewed the criteria for deletion - several times. I have not yet seen anything here that meets the criteria for deletion. If we assume good faith, we must believe that ANY category created by an editor serves a useful purpose to at least that editor. It only needs to be useful to those who actually use it anyway. Since I would never ask someone to prove a negative, that leaves us at the point where those who believe we should delete being asked to justify that the mere existance of the category is detrimental to the stated purposes of categories. I have not seen a single justification that the existance of this catagory, or many others (now that I have discovered CfD), impedes the purpose of Wikipedia. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Jim Miller (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless nonsense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is helpful in building the community. A sense of humour and a willingness to not take oneself too seriously - the only requirements for membership - are conducive to the mental health of individual members as well as to building a better Wikipedia. Full disclosure: I created a userbox. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the category help build community in a way that the userbox does not? Do you really think that people are going to search the category for other people who are open to being beat with a fish? (Yes, I am aware of the origin of the term; I was using mIRC in the 1990's.) Your userbox is a great idea, and I would encourage everyone who is in this category to add it to their userpage. However, it does not need a category to accomplish its purpose. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I myself have browsed the category listing, so (although I am a biased sample) I would answer yes to your question. I think a category page is a much more convenient and better laid out way of searching for users than the "what links here" alternative (which is the only way I know of to search for userbox users). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:STOATGOBBLE William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such thing. --Charitwo ^talk 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Mr. Connolley is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, I would try to look beyond the face value of that comment.--WaltCip (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a social networking site (not even a little bit). While users are free to enjoy piscine contact and are welcome to invite trout-slapping, categorizing such users does not serve any useful purpose for project-building. This does not even further community-building, unless users get some sort of editorial level up from perusing others who share their hobby. It should also be noted that trout-slapping is animal abuse, and can escalate to iguana-throwing. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:47:52, 03 May 2008 (UTC)
As above... delete ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale above. In essence, joke categories of this type are being used as bottom-of-the-page notices (contrary to years of precedent), since there is never any real reason to browse through the category itself, and the retention of one joke category makes it much harder to get rid of other useless pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted above, in general, humour isn't used in category space. If you want to make a note that you're open to criticism, please, feel free to note that on your userpage. But there's just no need for a category grouping for this. As noted above, it should be an all-inclusive category. - jc37 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott. Also, if you don't understand the purpose of this category, you might need to be slapped with a large trout. Enigma ^message 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one who helped in the creation of the trout template, and who would like to think that they know the "purpose" of the Wikipediaspace page and the (several) templates, I'll ask directly: What do you feel is the "purpose of this category"? Note that before you answer, I too have a trout at the ready. - jc37 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of it is similar to what was written above: "Clearly facilitates collaboration and a harmonious editing environment by showing that not all Wikipedians are averse to constructive criticism sprinkled with a bit of...humor." Enigma ^message 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is presumed (which I might dispute) so too would categories such as: Wikipedians who assume good faith; Wikipedians who respect consensus; Wikipedians who are civil; or even Wikipedians who are editors. And userboxes, and the projectspace pages, illustrate Wikipedian humour quite well. A category is a grouping, not an illustration, and should not be used any other sort of bottom-of-the-page notice.) So with this in mind, how do you feel that such an all-inclusive category helps facilitate collaboration? - jc37 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's a big difference between putting yourself in a category for some good trait, and saying that you're open to trout-slapping. Being open to trout-slapping in my mind, is similar to an administrator placing him or herself in the recall category. Although obviously being open to recall is opening yourself up to an actual process, as opposed to a mere figurative trout-slap, the general gist is the same. I feel that the category is useful. If you want to argue that it could have a userbox instead of an actual category, the same argument could be made for many current categories that exist. Enigma ^message 03:52, 5 May 2008 (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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Attack category; no evidence has been provided that this editor ever used sockpuppets. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created by Lucy C. V. Robinson (talk · contribs), who appears to be a sockpuppet of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs). The user's first edit was to add a ((Puppetmaster)) tag to User talk:Ussri Bobby. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this is indeed an attack, especially if it is baseless vandalism, and especially if the creator is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. ~A H1^(TCU) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Master even supports a speedy delete. Master Redyva (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category appears to be empty + per others. The Helpful One ^(Review) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (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 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty except for a template and wikipedia-space page, no actual users in the category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to even articulate my question, so just imagine this scenario: If a user signs up now who is Norwegian, there is already Category:Norwegian Wikipedians and he will be automatically added to that category by adding the appropriate userbox. If a Sahrawi Wikipedian signs up in the future, he may well add this userbox, but not be added to the category because it was deleted now. Why would the category be deleted pre-emptive of a user signing up for it? I can understand deleting, say, Akkadian Wikipedians, as that nation no longer exists, but I don't see the rationale in deleting this as it has just as much utility as Norwegian Wikipedians, only for Sahrawis who may not have registered on (English) Wikipedia yet. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Nom. The Master thinks "If" scenario silly. Master Redyva (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if/when Sahrawi Wikipedians (or even one) wish to identify as such. —Scouter Sig 14:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No predudice against a (re-)creation of a Wikipedians in (or from) version of the category. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:08, 1 May 2008 (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: Speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore, Maryland for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename support. Master Redyva (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per above --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:07, 1 May 2008 (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 - Removed the category from the populating userbox: Template:User Cooch Behar, since the single member also had Template:User West Bengal on their userpage (one of the rename options supported below). - jc37 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single user category, needs rename to Category:Wikipedians in Cooch Behar at minimum. Fairly low city population to sustain a category (76k). VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Cooch Behar (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedians in West Bengal (2nd choice). West Bengal is a higher-level administrative division and a category for Wikipedians from West Bengal is much more likely to be populated; the reason it's my second choice is that specificity is generally useful for the "by location" categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Black Falcon's WikiArguement. Master Redyva (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per single user category. --Kbdank71 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletewithout prejudice to recreation under suggested name (first choice) or Rename as per Black Falcon (second choice). This is an almost two-year old category with a single user; if more people show up to use the cat, I heartily support recreation. Horologium (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2008 (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. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom and vast precedent. Horologium (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not add to encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Could be seen as disparaging. — ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And I suppose Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping, or some (but not all) of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians are helpful to encyclopedia building as well. I'm sure there are others in the ocean of categories too. --Charitwo ^talk 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not useful categorization. (I'd favour deleting the similar categories Charitwo mentions as well.) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:58:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be empty? Presumably if you can add yourself to this category, you're not that lazy. Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete w/ the quickness. Master Redyva (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, um... well... you know. (too lazy to sign)

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, defaults to keep. This was a real train wreck, with accusations of failure to assume AGF coming from both sides of the debate. I would suggest that if this category is brought up again in a future discussion, both sides assume good faith in each other; nominating a category for deletion is not a personal attack, and !voting to keep is not a blatant disregard for precedent and policy. Horologium (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These are adult Scouters who have completed the Wood Badge training course from their respective Scout Association and received at least 2 wood beads" - No reason to group these users in a category, see similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is reason to group them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason? Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 20:15, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unlike what VegaDark would have us believe, the precedent here is mixed. There is no reason not to allow wikians to selfID as Wood Badgers, as they do with dozens of other self categorizations. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "dozens of other self categorizations" sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 21:00, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nominator & Wikipedians by award. -Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 17:51, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Note:Wikipedians by award is not a policy, but just a historical list, with an inconsistent record. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None the less, the "inconsistent historical list" and the nominator's reasoning have cemented my vote in stone (more than half of the "by award" list were deleted, sound precedent). Thanks. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 18:52, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Delete per "No reason to group these users in a category." The catergory does not appear useful for encyclopedia. SameDayService (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Members of this category have completed Scouting's highest adult training course and are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, and although inclusion in a user category might to a non-Scouter appear as a small thing cast easily aside, any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated. Another point: Something as simple as inclusion in a user category might be fuel for the fire to entice these Wikipedians into contributing to, or to make further contributions to, the worldwide Scouting portal. For at least these two reasons, and more yet to be verbalized, I am on the "strong keep" side of the table. Thanks. xpanmanx (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "proud of their accomplishments"? Is this a catergory or a userpage topic? "bind us together," is this a social networking issue? Please see WP:NOTMYSPACE Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse)

Keep because this is not an award, but a conferred educational recognition. Those people who have completed this level of training have demonstrated a high level of expertise within the program, and that is both useful and appropriate for an encyclopedia. We allow other means of displaying levels of expertise in order to indentify those with an acknowledged strength in a particular area, and this is no different. The precedent cited has no bearing in this case. Jim Miller (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per educational rationale of User:JimMillerJr. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to make it clear. I won't be closing this. Consider this similar to an arbitrator's recusal. Incidentally, I don't expect any of the questions for clarification to be responded to, nor do I expect this to close as anything other than speedy keep (I almost closed it as such myself). There simply are times on Wikipedia in which the POV pushers will "get their way" depite the double standard they're setting. (Incidentally, WP:AGF says to do so only until you encounter evidence to the contrary. And, in the past, I feel I have.) I mean this sincerely: Being an outstanding person of sound mind, and personal accomplishments is a great thing. I support, and honestly admire it. But we're all Wikipedians here. And I don't see any place where this category helps in the building of the encyclopedia. Indeed, I've seen one person make it clear that this is a "self-identifying category". Well, userboxes are enough for that. But please, continue with the POV pushing, to "get your way". After all, You'll have won, what? A feel-good listing of your friends. Congratulations. I hope you enjoy it. - jc37 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about lack of AGF. What's more harmful and less encyclopedic--userpages with dozens of boxes that make it very difficult to read and use that page or categories that help make it easy to find users with similar interests? Wiki's pendulum has swung way to far to the deletionists. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jim Miller, this categorization may serve to aid the Scouting WikiProject in creating, developing, and improving articles. Wikipedia:User categories are intended "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." The page also notes that naming and description restrictions are similar to those for userboxes. Following that line of thought… Restrictions on Userboxes refers to User page guidelines. As such, reviewing user page guidelines:

Guidance on what is acceptable on user page:

"Your user page is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project…a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working."

Guidance on what is unacceptable on user page:

"Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia." [Bold mine] A simple category, which does aid in collaboration, certainly does not exceed the "excessive" information guideline.
"Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia." This category, at worst, falls into this grouping. AGF, this helps establish some information about the level of knowledge an editor may have when editing articles that are related to the Scouting WikiProject.

— ERcheck (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing in any of the keep rationales explains how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting is not sufficient to cover the supposed benefits of the category. Why would that category not be enough to facilitate collaboration? I also find it fairly odd that so many users have come out of the woodwork who have never been to UCFD before just to vote on this. VegaDark (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another lack of AGF. Maybe they watch the cat like I do or watch edits of someone involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No lack of AGF, I just find it striking that so many users could discover this so fast with no noticeboard posting that I am aware of. And I'm still wondering how Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting isn't sufficient enough for collaboration, that category seems to cover any reasoning that has been provided to keep this category. VegaDark (talk)

comment for vegadark I'd like to know who these phantom users are of whom you speak. That sure smacks to me of bad faith, and I take umbrage. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom users? Are you referring to those who I said I have never seen at UCFD before? VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"interested in Scouting" is "not enough" because this topic isn't as simple as you think it is. If you don't understand the subject matter then please don't comment on it. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With 65 subcatagories of Wikipedians by degree rather than a single catagory of Wikipedians with college degrees, we seem to place some value on the level of an editors claimed expertise. It would seem that maintaining a similar breakdown to indicate those levels within this area is clearly within both the letter and spirit of WP:USERCAT. I am not making a claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but merely pointing out that the entire justification for User catagories is to identify an editors knowledge at specific levels in a way meaningful to those who check those catagories. Jim Miller (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Boy Scouts badge is a far cry from a college degree. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your dismissive tone says it all. The wood badge is not "a boy scouts badge". It is the name given to the adult leader training award by Scout associations worldwide. It is an adult youth work qualification. Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dismissive because this simply Training - Ongoing . I liken it to categorizing people who are CPR or First Aid certified. According to the article, "Classroom and outdoor training are often combined and taught together, and occur over one or more weeks or weekends." Something that can be obtained in a couple weekends of classes should not be compared to a college degree, which takes years of hard work, and is a standard benchmark in society to determine one's education level. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is only part of the training. There is generally quite a bit of correspondence study. In Australia it is approved as a Diploma of Leadership under the Australian Qualifications Framework. It is a Technical and Further Education Award. I have the Wood Badge and I am in this category having put the userbox on my user page, but I am still uncertain as to whether the category should be kept or deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark: Saying that Woodbadge is something that can be obtained in a couple of week ends is like saying that a degree is something that can be obtaining by just waiting for the dean to call your name, then standing up and taking the diploma from his hands. Of course, there's a lot more before this, be it years of study or years of service to the scout movement and its youth members. While the path to achieving your Wood Badge varies by country, in all cases you are required to have attended previous courses and to evaluate your previous performance as an adult leader. For this reason, it is a "standard benchmark" (to use your words) to compare different training curricula of different scout organization. I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I based that off what the article says, if that is incorrect then someone should change it. VegaDark (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wood badge course itself last for a week. However, before attending the course a participant needs to complete several prerequisites courses. In the Philippines, after completing the prerequisite courses but before attending the wood badge course, participants are required to complete defined critical achievements such as helping 25% of your boy scouts advance to the next rank. Now attending the wood badge course does not automatically grants you the award/recognition. After the course participants must complete their ticket. It is like a self-imposed measurable achievement. Again in the Philippines, participants are given a series of question that they need to write a report on (sort of like a research paper). These questions are designed to test a participant's understanding of the principles of Scouting including the Patrol Method, the concept of Learning by Doing, membership in small groups, etc. Upon submitting the report the participant gets interviewed to drill into the responses to the question. Eventually the participant is given the wood badge and the certificate of completion. Hopefully this gives a better idea of what’s involved. So it is an award to signify that a person is considered “knowledgeable” in the subject matter both in theory and in practice.-Mang Kiko (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful category. --evrik ^(talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a useful indication of the users level of expertise in Scouting matters, and on the grounds that it is primarily a mark of achieving an educational level, rather than an award. Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jim Miller's excellent comments. This is not simply a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting but a grouping of potential resources, similar to Category:Wikipedians by education or Category:Wikipedians by skill. I believe it is unlike Wikipedians by professional association in that the members of the category are specialized enough to merit a subcat, but not overspecific enough to no longer be collaborative. —Scouter Sig 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the Wood Badge course is an advanced adult leader training course, not an award that can be "won" or that is handed out lightly. It is indeed a defining characteristic of many of the people that complete this training and this category serves as a useful way to self-organize editor for a variety Wikipedia-related tasks in the Scouting project. - Dravecky (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful in estimating the knowledge of an editor on scouting matters. --Lou Crazy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "estimating the knowledge of an editor," Woah! Wikipedians by lifestyle. Master Redyva (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WOAH!, is it really that hard to conceive that if a user says "I know a lot about X" that they might know a lot about X? -- Ned Scott 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right. So if I say I know a lot about something, it means I do? I can't wait to add my name to this catergory once all the boy scouts vote to keep it. Fun! I do agree with Vegadark: this is not worth categorizing. Master Redyva (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible people are lying, but we assume good faith on Wikipedia, and we don't require verification for claims like this made in meta space. I'm in Category:Wikipedian audio engineers, but you have no way of knowing that I actually am one, or that I've had years of experience with audio engineering. But if someone were to ask for my help with a related article, not only would I be able to help out, but I have a great amount of references. That is why we keep these kinds of categories. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redyva, I think many of the discussions in the "lifestyle" section were deleted because they are poorly defined, not just because it's a description. This Wood Badge category is very much defined. —Scouter Sig 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is well defined does not mean it needs a category. --Kbdank71 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Category:Wikipedians by skill. Simply just doing something is one thing, but it's pretty clear that this involves a skill and a level of expertise. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: shows deep knowledge of Scouting.--Bedford 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire. If you want myspace, it's thataway. This is wikipedia. If you want a pat on the head for having skill, get a userbox. Or here's a novel idea: get a myspace account. --Kbdank71 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's patting anyone on the head? We keep these kinds of categories for collaboration purposes, not for praise. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Members of this category ... are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. Scouting is a brotherhood, ... any help in growing and maintaining the ties that bind us together are most welcome and appreciated." Sure sounds like a pat on the head to me. If you wanted to collaborate, a better place to say "ask me for help" would be Talk:Wood_Badge. --Kbdank71 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting. Saying that you are interested in the subject matter is insufficient. Also, no other categorization that I am aware of serves this purpose. - Mang Kiko (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Wood Badge identifies an editor as having a deep knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of Scouting." What? I am reading its an "award for adult leaders" and the course is to teach leadership skills. Where is all this "deep knowledge" coming from? "deep knowledge" keeps getting repeated. Master Redyva (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (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 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent to double upmerge such categories here. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge to Category:Swedish Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians as nom. Not particularly opposed to only upmerging to Category:Swedish Wikipedians, per the category description saying "People from Sweden currently living in the United States, or Americans with Swedish ancestry.", and ancestry cats have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per "ancestry" precedent, but do not merge. The problem with a merge here is that it combines two disparate groups, people who were born in Sweden and people whose ancestors were born in Sweden. A merge to Swedish would inappropriately categorize those who are using this category for an ancestry identification, and merging it to American might be inappropriate for Swedes living in the United States who don't consider themselves to be American. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with unreserved enthusiasm. Master Redyva (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of all the ancestry categories is absurd.--Bedford 08:43, 29 April 2008 (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: Speedily closed as Withdrawn - As noted below, this was just a confusion due to Category:Wikipedia patrols being miscategorised. - jc37 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedia patrols to Category:Wikipedian page patrollers

Essentially the same thing. Open to suggestions for a better target name might be. - jc37 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominator. - jc37 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you leave a word out? That first category is a redlink, and it doesn't appear to have been a category recently. (The only link to the category is this discussion.) Horologium (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting. "There are no pages or files in this category." Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedian was the problem. Though now fixed : ) - jc37 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only difference between the two categories is that one has subcats, and the other has pages. I will add the pages to the target (Category:Wikipedian page patrollers), and thereby make the first redundant. Horologium (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this does not seem to be a user cat, but rather a project page category. In other words, pages for patrolling would be placed in here. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... keep. As Ned Scott notes, these two similarly-named categories seem to have different functions: Category:Wikipedia patrols is intended for pages in the Wikipedia namespace and Category:Wikipedian page patrollers is a user category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (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 – feel free to renominate. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - per the recent discussions: here and here. And it's a single user-cat. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the past two discussions mentioned by the nom don't really seem to apply. For one, this is an "interested in" cat, while the other two involved "likes" cats. The other discussions involved individual shows, where some felt it was needless to be that specific, but that really won't be an issue here. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the convention for subcats of "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" is to use the "who like" convention. And I might note that they were (at one point) subcats of this cat. As of now, all the subcats of this cat have been individually deleted. Given that prior precedent, I don't foresee this cat being used as a parent category. So this is more a question of should this be depopulated (and thus deleted). - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "interested in reality television" Is too broad to be useful. You can't possibly be interested in collaborating on all reality TV shows, the category gives no direction. No prejudice to creating a "Wikipedians by interest in a reality TV series" category though, as a parent category. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV has become a type of show, and yes, you can be interested in collaborating on all of them. It's no different than a user interested in, say, anime. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can be interested in all of them, sure, but will you collaborate on all of them? Doubtful. Delete. --Kbdank71 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series (up for rename, not deletion), and this is no different from that. I'm interested in anime collaboration, that doesn't mean that I'll be able to edit all articles about that topic, but that's not what the category is suggesting. This logic would have us delete almost every single "interested in" user cat that we have. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. And it's all based on the letter "A". "Wikipedians interested in reality television" means "as a whole", also known as "all of it". "Wikipedians by interest in a television series", with the article "A" in it, limits it to one. As in, Interested in ONE television series. Much different than what I was speaking of above. Not to mention that "Wikipedians by interest in a television series" has no users in it, just subcats. --Kbdank71 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... obviously I was talking about the subcats within it. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, the cat has no subcats, and likely will not have subcats. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As JC notes, there are no subcats. Make my delete strong per single user category, in addition to my reasons above, please. --Kbdank71 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete "reality" programing if possible. Master Redyva (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ned Scott.--Bedford 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see a problem with this category. gidonb (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that it has only one member, whose last contribution was a month ago? - jc37 05:38, 8 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows to Category:Wikipedians interested in TV game shows

Not sure about this one, but felt it should be discussed. I didn't think we should try to shoehorn "TV series" into the name, since the article is Game show. But suggesting to at least change "television" to "TV" per the other nom. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Nominator's wisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (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 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Top Gear - It's called a magazine show (a talk show), with a particular focus of sports journalism, though I'll note that in its current format it's almost a variety show, or at least similar to Breakfast television. - jc37 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedence of other talk shows. - jc37 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not help Wikipedia to know who "likes" a particular TV show. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedence & per Wikipedians who dislike Top Gear. Master Redyva (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (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. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians - per Black Falcon's recent nomination of all the ancestry catgories. The same argument should apply to "race", regardless if the term "race" is or isn't different than "ancestry". - jc37 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the Wikipedians by ancestry discussions, and also because the inclusion criteria for the category are undefined (and, to some extent, even meaningless), meaning that there is no guarantee that the members of the category have in common anything of substance (particulary as it relates to encyclopedic collaboration). The userbox(es) are adequate to convey the sentiment. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon & Wikipedians by ancestry discussions. Multiracial Wikipedians is very vague. Master Redyva ♠ 17:49, April 22, 2008 (UTC)
Delete — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2008 (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. VegaDark (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries - per Black Falcon's recent nomination of all the ancestry categories. And due to being too broadly vague to be useful (for navigation/for collaboration). - jc37 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the Wikipedians by ancestry discussions, and also because the inclusion criteria for the category are virtually all-inclusive, meaning that there is no guarantee that the members of the category have in common anything of substance (particulary as it relates to encyclopedic collaboration). The userbox(es) are adequate to convey the sentiment. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon & Wikipedians by ancestry discussions. Wikipedians of multiple ancestries is very vague. Master Redyva ♠ 17:49, April 22, 2008 (UTC)

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

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 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a Wikipedians by individual category, which have historically been deleted as too narrow for a category. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unsure if this is just a "fan club" category, or if there is a deeper identification issue here. Ataturk is very significant to Turkish identity. If it's just a singular personality cat, then nuke it. Horologium (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard previous, I was thinking of Kemalism, which is not quite the same thing. Same person, different focus. Delete as per nom and precedent. Horologium (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the userbox that populates this category consists only of a quote by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and does not provide actual information about users. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Master Redyva (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (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:Canadian Wikipedians. Kbdank71 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed for an encyclopedic purpose, would set precedent to create a "x Wikipedians of x origin" for every country/ethnicity combination if allowed. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double merge to Category:Canadian Wikipedians and Category:Indian Wikipedians (would this be the correct category for "of indian origin?) as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a single upmerge to Category:Canadian Wikipedians would be better, since "of Indian origin" seems a lot like "of Indian ancestry". As previously noted here and here, ancestral background may not translate into active national/ethnic identification. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to that. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Black Falcon's WikiWisdom. Master Redyva (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The double merge proposed I think would be a little too all-encompassing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 28 April 2008 (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 15:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A dæmon is a manifestation of a person's soul in the Philip Pullman trilogy His Dark Materials." Looks like some sort of joke or nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as a joke/nonsense category. I was leaning toward renaming to Category:Wikipedians who read His Dark Materials, but the userbox is too generic for me to feel comfortable with such renaming (the likelihood of causing miscategorisation is too high). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per absurdity. Master Redyva (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (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 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Manta ray wikipedians are a group of wikipedians who love manta rays!!!" - Not useful, create an "interested in" category if you wish to collaborate on articles. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as an instance of categorisation on the basis of an irrelevant like or dislike. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete &/or exterminate. Master Redyva (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per... uh, yeah. Just no. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:41, 28 April 2008 (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: speedy renamed by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Las Vegas, Nevada for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per VegaDark & Jc37. Laen My Verse Ram Nej (Verse) 15:00, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by Kbdank71. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per long standing precedent to delete all 0-level categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ~~Rename~~ per nom. - jc37 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean speedy delete? In any case, it's already been done. VegaDark (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, typing too quickly : ) - jc37 18:16, 26 April 2008 (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 - jc37 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category was accidentally left out of the original "Wikipedians by ancestry" nomination, which resulted in a "delete" outcome. The same deletion rationale (see here or here) applies to this single-user category. While I haven't listed this in the "Speedy nominations", the category could perhaps be speedily deleted per the precedent of the April 13 discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I support a speedy delete too. Master Redyva ♠ 21:17, April 21, 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. While there is a precedent, it's not a long-standing one, so I don't support a speedy on this one. Horologium (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (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: upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Romania. Kbdank71 15:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians from Satu Mare per naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support a speedy rename, but I think it should be to Category:Wikipedians in Satu Mare per the userbox: User:Mario1987/Satu Mare. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note this : ) - jc37 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care which, it looks like the author started it off as "from" but then changed it to "in". Since we recently deleted a "from" category since knowing where someone is from does not help wikipedia (which I can't disagree with), I'm somewhat more inclined to support "in". VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I seem to recall that we were pretty near a consensus on allowing both in or from. However, since the user made the change, so should we, probably. If renaming, weakly supporting "in". (Weakly, because I still personally think all "in" should be merged to "from".) - jc37 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename. Master Redyva supports the wisdom of both Black Falcon & VegaDark. Master Redyva ♠ 00:04, April 16, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (I think). : ) - jc37 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge - to Category:Wikipedians in Romania - single user cat. - jc37 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't particularly mind an upmerge as a single-user cat. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 21 April 2008 (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 action necessary (keep depopulated). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion here, I would like to initiate a discussion on the possible repopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in history. The category was depopulated per this discussion in February, based on the conclusion that it was too broad to be useful. There seem to be three options:

(1) Endorse the result of the February discussion (in practical terms: do nothing)

(2) Reverse the outcome of the February discussion (in practical terms: repopulate the category by undoing all edits made to depopulate it)

(3) Permit repopulation without undoing the original de-population (in practical terms: do nothing, version 2)

Neutral, for now. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion (Oh, wait this isn't WP:DRV : ) - Joking aside, I still think that this is too broad to be useful. I understand the want for a category referring to history in the specific, however, as I noted in a previous discussion, in a sense, all of Wikipedia is concerned with history. This is essentially an "all-inclusive" category. I'd only support its recreation as a parent cat of specifically defined subcats. That said, I welcome further discussion on this. - jc37 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It does appear to be pretty broad. Only slightly less so than Category:Wikipedians interested in everything. --Kbdank71 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep depopulated of individual users - Not persuaded by arguments to repopulate. "Interested in history" can mean all sorts of things. Knowing someone is simply "interested in history" gives no guidance over what articles such users might be actually interested in collaborating on. Additionally, "History" can be broadly defined to be just about anything that has happened in the past, so what articles "history" might be to one person could be something else to another person. The likihood of successful collaboration between users in this category is quite small, and the elimination of the general category encourages any users who are actually interested in collaborating on aspects of history to join one of the more specific subcategories. VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: could Category:Wikipedians interested in history (discipline) be created as a category for those with a specific interest in history as a discipline, or is that too likely to spawn a proliferation of "X (discipline)" categories for other topics. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possible title would be Category:Wikipedians interested in the study of history. Having the parentheses, while done elsewhere, is distracting, I think. —ScouterSig 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just found Category:Wikipedians interested in researching history... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I disagree with the sentiment, this diff of the userbox which populates the above category made me laugh : ) - jc37 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the one who brought this up originally as someone who was actually in the category. I quite disagree with the arguments above that this category encompasses "everything" and is too broad to be useful, nor do I think having such a category would lead to every Wikipedian and their mother putting themselves in the category since everything is ultimately "history." I continue to find it remarkable that some folks who were not in this category and have no intention of being in it are so confident that it could never be useful for collaboration when someone who was actually in the category argues otherwise. It's very strange to be telling another user that they do not know what is useful to them in terms of collaboration (particularly when we are dealing with an academic subject like history, something which I know a bit about since it is my field of study in graduate school), and I would hope folks who frequent this page will think twice about doing that in the future. (End of minor rant). The good news is that Black Falcon's find of Category:Wikipedians interested in researching history is much appreciated as said category can serve the same purpose as the one deleted. I'll put myself in it and if someone wants to close this early it's fine with me. Thanks to Black Falcon for addressing my concerns, opening this discussion, and finding a good alternative to the category in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse depopulation (Option 1). Being "interested in history" is so broad as to have little collaborative use: I could post questions on dozens of talk pages without hitting someone who knows about what I need. The subcats are useful, however, and should stay and stay populated. —Scouter Sig 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 07:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) - Category wasn't tagged...[reply]

Keep I don't list myself in such categories, but if I did i would fit in here (as to many editors who edit rather widely on historical subjects).DGG (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse depopulation, deny repopulation. Category:Wikipedians interested in researching history, which already exists and is appropriately categorized in the usercat tree should alleviate any need to use this as a populated category. Horologium (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Someone can be interested in history without actually researching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by bedford (talk • contribs)
Endorse deletion/depopulation per jc37. Wikipedia is essentially all about history. If kept, use as a parent category per VegaDark; I don't see the utility of a parent cat in this instance, but if others do, I don't see the harm. But I don't think individual users belong in a category like this, I don't see any utility in building an encyclopedia. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (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: Speedy Delete - C1, empty. - jc37 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category has several problems, first being that South Florida is a redirect to South Florida metropolitan area. Second, this category is empty except for the userbox page; no actual users are in it. Third, if this type of category were allowed, it would set precedent to create categories for "South" or "North" for all 50 states (and perhaps East and West?) if kept. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is empty, without prejudice to recreation. South Florida is not simply the southern part of the state (ie, a regional category), it is a specific three-county region on the east coast of Florida. People in Naples and Fort Myers will not say they live in south Florida, they will say they live in southwest Florida (and yes, that distinction is important to them). South Florida is equivalent to San Francisco Bay Area or Chicagoland, which are appropriate targets for user categorization by location. Horologium (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (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 - jc37 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a single article category, so collaboration is better accomplished on the talk page. At minimum, needs a rename as Tang-e Bolaghi redirects to Tangeh Bolaghi. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, redirect if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to being a single-article category, it is populated by a social activism support/oppose userbox for users who want to "save" Tangeh Bolaghi -- see ((User Tang-e Bolaghi)). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 17 April 2008 (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 all - jc37 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize users by what operating system they happen to use. I use Windows, but am not interesting in collaborating at all on topics related to Windows, nor am I more able than others to contribute to the article because I use Windows. At minimum, the fringe categories need deleting- Nobody cares if you use Mac OS X Server vs. Mac OS X, or Windows XP vs. Windows XP Professional. A userbox is more than sufficient to convey this info, there is absolutely no benefit to group such users in to categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As VegaDark notes, the mere fact of using a particular OS does not imply any sort of ability, knowledge, or interest that could be relevant to encyclopedia-building. As I see it, the only possible argument for utility is for OS-specific technical support; however, upon examination, even this turns out to be a very weak argument. There are three types of tech support issues that could arise:

OS-specific tech support unrelated to Wikipedia – We should not have categories for this. Wikipedia is not a tech support website and general questions (or requests for advice) unrelated to the encyclopedia don't really belong anywhere except maybe the Reference desk.
OS-specific tech support related to Wikipedia in general – While this is a legitimate issue, these categories aren't useful for obtaining help in such situations. There's no guarantee that someone who uses Windows XP, for example, will be able to help another XP user with a technical problem (using a particular OS does not make someone a computer expert). One is more likely to get a useful response at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or at at the Help desk.
OS-specific tech support related to a specific Wikipedia function, process, or tool – This is, again, a legitimate issue, but the categories are still not useful. If I'm having a problem with AWB or Twinkle, it's much easier for me to ask for help at WT:AWB or WT:TWINKLE, respectively, than to send out "help me" notices to dozens of users, who may or may not know anything about tech support or AWB or Twinkle.

In all likelihood, all of these categories were created just because category code was automatically included in the various userboxes; however, there seems to be no actual need to maintain groupings of users by operating system. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. As much as I would like to have a good reason to keep, thinking of troubleshooting help, BF makes superb arguments that cover everything. —Scouter Sig 13:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Master Redyva supports the wisdom of both Black Falcon & VegaDark. Master Redyva ♠ 21:41, April 17, 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. My first impulse was to oppose, but I actually read the nom and agree. Userboxes will do just fine. Horologium (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Boston, Massachusetts for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in St. Louis, Missouri for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (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 - jc37 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by individual" category, which have consistently been deleted. Possibly speedyable by now. VegaDark (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to country music. —Scouter Sig 14:44, 15 April 2008 (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 - jc37 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A category should either be single subject or easily deliniated into subcats. This cat does neither. I am thinking it should be deleted, as a split/merge/rename would not resolve the issue of which users like which kind of music. No opposition to creation of Category:Wikipedians who listen to bluegrass; Category:Wikipedians who listen to country music already exists.

Delete as nominator. —Scouter Sig 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No need to combine these genres in a single category, can create an individual category for bluegrass if needed. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (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 - jc37 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single user category that could nest instead inside Category:Wikipedians who listen to industrial music. (Or Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal music, since it's a subcat of both.)

Merge as nominator. Unsure of target. —Scouter Sig 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure about this one, as Industrial metal has a page of its own. Then again, it is a single user category. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have suggested an upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal music, but the sole member of this category is already a member of its parent. FWIW, this cat is not listed as a subcat of Category:Wikipedians who listen to industrial music, despite the nomination. Horologium (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2008 (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 - jc37 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single user category attached to a userbox. Delete per precedent.

Delete as nominator. —Scouter Sig 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Master Redyva ♠ 20:42, April 15, 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Not sure about this one, as Noise music has a page of its own. Then again, it is a single user category. VegaDark (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, without prejudice to recreation if enough users express an interest. Horologium (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (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 to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series, no consensus to upmerge. "comedy television" matches the other category, perhaps someone should propose a page move for the article. VegaDark (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television comedy series (by series) or Category:Wikipedians by interest in television comedy (by the general topic) - Television comedy is the article name. This will also allow it to be a parent category for possible future subcategorisation by type (Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television situation comedy series - Situation comedy - for example. I also would support directly merging the nominated cat to this sitcom cat, since the majority of subcats are.) Note that I still would prefer this to be UpMerged to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series, but until there is consensus for that, we should at least rename to match the article names. - jc37 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. In order of preference: 1.) UpMerge 2.) "sitcom" cat as target 3.) "by series" as target. Oppose the general topic as simply too broad. (Nearly all-inclusive.) - jc37 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like comedy television for the sake of brevity. The category name lengths are getting out of control. Do not make this a strict parent category for just television series; let users categorize themselves in this category. Do not strangle users with the noose of collaboration only categories. Do keep Wikipedia fun by allowing non-collaborative categories. Also, not all items in those categories will be strictly television series, though television series will be involved. The Addams family is not just a television series; it is a comic, feature films, soundtracks, books, and so much more. Also, interest is too passive, like is far more active. - LA @ 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. --Kbdank71 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus to upmerge, did you have a rename preference? - jc37 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and LA. I think that this is a "good" category in being specific, yet not confining. We shouldn't delete so many potentially useful categories and create a precedent we can't back out of. I think it should only be a parent category, for now, and not be populated with users. —Scouter Sig 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a target preference for the rename? - jc37 04:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. ::smacks head:: I prefer Category:Wikipedians by interest in television comedy to match the title of the article. Although... "comedy television" sounds better, and I think is what I normally see written/hear aloud. Perhaps the article should change? —Scouter Sig 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the article name makes sense, in the sense that it's "television comedy", as compared to "radio comedy", or any other type of comedy; I note that the category is: Category:Comedy television series. So perhaps: Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series. - jc37 05:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that idea sounds the best. —Scouter Sig 01:43, 22 April 2008 (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: Speedy delete - Removing from the populating userbox. (Incidentally, the nom made me chuckle due to its irony : ) - jc37 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful to categorize, I seem to remember something similar to this being deleted previously as well, so possibly speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (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: A unanimous Delete all. - jc37 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Within Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality there a number of categories for "Wikipedians of X ancestry" existing alongside "X-ian Wikipedians" categories for the same ethnic/national groups (e.g. Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry and Category:Taiwanese Wikipedians).

In a previous discussion involving this type of category, it was noted that having a specific ancestry is not necessarily the same as identifying with a certain ethnic or national group. Thus, the distinction between "X-ian Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians of X ancestry" is between reflection of an (active) identification and a (passive) genetic history.

The category description of Category:Wikipedians of Native American ancestry provides a clear explanation of the purpose of these types of categories: they are for users who "do not necessarily identify solely as being Native Americans, but do acknowledge their Native American heritage or ancestry". However, user categories are intended to be navigable groupings of users on the basis of a characteristic that has the potential to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; they are not intended to be bottom-of-the-page notices for self-identification, mechanisms for the expression of nationalist pride, or groupings for the purpose of social networking or social or political identity-building or factionalism.

A comment left at Category talk:Wikipedians of Finnish ancestry raises another question about whether this type of categorisation is meaningful. Technically, a person qualifies for inclusion in Category:Wikipedians of Finnish ancestry if that person's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great... (you get the point...) grandmother was half-Finnish. How is it meaningful to categorise that?

In light of all of this, I propose that all categories that group Wikipedians by ethnic or national ancestry or descent be deleted. Such categories provide information about a person's genealogical history (Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory), but do not cast light on a person's self-identification (the merits of the main ethnic/national identification categories can be debated, but that is best left for another time).

Most importantly, these categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, since they do not reflect any encyclopedically-relevant ability, activity, interest, knowledge, or skill. To quote VegaDark from the April 2007 discussion:

[J]ust because someone is of a specific ancestry does not mean they can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to their ancestry. ... You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry.

Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom's very well-composed argument. Without looking at the actual category listings, I suspect that most of the members of these groups are Americans whose ancestors came from elsewhere (as have most Americans, at one time or another); such affiliations can easily be noted with userboxes. As mobility between nations becomes the norm rather than the exception, ancestries become more complex, and categorization in four or even more ethnic background categories becomes less unusual and less relevant. Let's keep categorization confined to current condition, rather than the past. Horologium (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per well-reasoned nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per a very well-reasoned nom. Master Redyva ♠19:56, April 14, 2008 (UTC)
BF Roolz!!one! Um, I mean delete per nom who roolz, yo --Kbdank71 20:58, 16 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User gsw-M to Category:User gsw-N

Speedy rename to standardise with other "native-level" language categories ("M" stands for "Muttersprache", i.e. "mother tongue"). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (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: speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping, per extensive precedent. I will inform the editor of the Special:Prefixindex function. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete categories for individual userspace. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (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: speedy delete, per extensive precedent. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete all 0-level categories. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (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: Speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Livermore (San Francisco Bay Area) to Category:Wikipedians in Livermore, California

Speedy rename to match the article (Livermore, California) and shorten the category name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (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: Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as it is a recreation of Category:Wikipedian firefighters.--Urban Rose 04:14, 12 April 2008 (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: Speedy delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete due to it being misspelled instead of Wikipedian Firefighters (no 's'). The three users in the cat are the result of a cache issue. The proper category exists at :Category:Wikipedian Firefighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --Daysleeper47 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2008 (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: Speedy delete both as substantially similar recreation of previously deleted content. Bring original debate to deletion review if you want the decision overturned. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4 - These seem to be substantially identical to Category:Wikipedians for anonymous editing and Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing, both of which were deleted per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians for anonymous editing. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think that these categories could be helpful in facilitating collaboration between people who share these views, but if consensus had them deleted before I'm not sure that I'll say keep. --Urban Rose 14:36, 13 April 2008 (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: nomination withdrawn. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a group nom. Please follow the link for a list of rationale. I created this cateory, but wish it to go through a slow deletion process to determine consensus about whether or not it deserves a place in the encyclopedia.--Urban Rose 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a combination of a 'support/oppose' category and a 'miscellaneous sentiment/belief' category. Virtually all such user categories have been deleted even if they deal with Wikipedia, as this one does (see here and here for an index of prior discussions). Without commenting on the point of view advanced by the category, I think it's safe to say that there is fairly strong consensus that this type of category should not exist (the same applies, by the way, to Category:Wikipedians who believe that account creation should not be required on Wikipedia). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(See my recent comment on this page. I think the categories could be helpful in facilitating collaboration between Wikipedians who share those views (similar to, for example, the category Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians, but if you say that consensus is against it, that's fine. Speedy close, as withdrawal of nom. If you want to re-nominate either category, that's fine with me.--Urban Rose 20:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the userbox and the project page is similar to Mr.Z-man's, and I do not really think they should be deleted. However, due partly to the fact that categories are essentially a technical feature of MediaWiki software, the standards are somewhat different. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (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 action - None of the categories were tagged. Please feel free to tag all, and renominate at editorial discretion. - jc37 07:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams. "Fan" categories are too broad to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration.

Better idea: rename all categories from "Wikipedian -name of sports team- fans" to "Wikipedians interested in -name of sports team-" and make all of them subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams.--Urban Rose 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename: being a fan of a sports team is no guarantee of wanting to edit articles about the team. (I'm a fan of a few football clubs but have relatively little interest in editing articles related to sports, let alone articles about those clubs.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I agree with BF that "fan" should not necessarily be translated to "interested in". I am a "fan" of every professional team Oregon State University has a player on - Red Sox, Rams, Packers, Bengals, Browns, Mariners, Spurs, etc. - But I would only be interested in collaborating on articles related to OSU sports, not of those other teams. That being said, knowing who is a "fan" of a particular team is not helpful to categorize, and a userbox for this should be sufficient, so they should all be deleted. However, the categories need tagging still. VegaDark (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Sacramento, California for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (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: speedy delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete all "wikipedians by band" categories. VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this means all "wikipedians by band" categories are to be deleted? --Factorylad (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, they have been. A full list of discussions is available here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, thats a big deletion list. Thanks. --Factorylad (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2008 (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 - jc37 07:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful to group these pages, as they serve no encylopedic purpose. I seem to remember something like this being deleted before, but I couldn't find the debate. This category is distinguishable from the "Wikipedian guestbooks" category because this has significantly less pages (so finding the pages within for a group MfD nomination would be much easier), and also one can make the argument that this encourages vandalism. VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The merits of user subpages designed to allow users to release their vandalistic urges can be debated, but a category grouping together such pages is a little too much... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless grouping, tacitly encourages "vandalism" rather than constructive improvement of the encyclopedia. Falls under the heading of social networking rather than collaborative grouping. Horologium (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this encourages vandalism.--Urban Rose 04:08, 12 April 2008 (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: superseded by the April 12 nomination. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox is fine but the category is too broad to facilitate collaberation and discussion.--Urban Rose 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not because it's too broad; delte because it's not structured. If Braves fans want to collaborate, they should do it through a page or project, not a category. ...that said, I'm going to add the userbox. :) —Scouter Sig 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't particularly believe we should have "fan" categories for anything, but I do think that if nominated this should be a group nomination of everything in Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball fans as to not single out the Braves, or even better everything in Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams as to not single out MLB fans. That being said, this should probably be speedy closed in favor for a larger nomination. VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nomed all the sports fan categories at the top.--Urban Rose 04:26, 12 April 2008 (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 - And the other cat mentioned by VegaDark has already been renamed. - jc37 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit my ignorance, but it seems like this is redundant of Category:Wikipedians in the San Francisco Bay Area and so should be merged into the latter. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nom. Master Redyva ♠ 00:27, April 11, 2008 (UTC)

Comment -If East Bay is a part of the San Fran Bay Area, keep my vote. It does appear it is a part of the area and not a seperate geographical region. Are there user categories for North Bay & South Bay (San Francisco Bay Area)? Master Redyva ♠ 12:29, April 12, 2008 (UTC)

Merge--Urban Rose 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure about this one, as per East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) showing an article exists under the same name. Additionally, Category:Wikipedians in Livermore (San Francisco Bay Area) should probably be considered along with this as to its fate (noting in that case, however, that the article name is Livermore, California). VegaDark (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. The East Bay is just one part of the overall area and has a about 1/10 of the total, still a respectable number. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area. Ignorance of the geography can be remedied. DGG (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats. Well, if one is a subset of another, then they should be categorized as such, right? Is the smaller of the categories likely to be populated enough to justify its existence? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge - I think that there are enough editors from the SF Bay Area to justify division by region. As I see it, the primary utility of the location categories is tied to the ability of editors to produce freely-licensed images of buildings, places, people, etc. For that purpose, a certain amount of specificity is useful. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (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 - jc37 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful, could potentially include thousands of user pages. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Master Redyva ♠ 00:27, April 11, 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (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: UpMerge both - jc37 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get this specific, sets precedent to create categories for every version of every web browser if kept. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge both to parent category as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This cannot reasonably aid in collaboration. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 8 April 2008 (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 and remove from js - After looking over the code myself, I see what Kbdank means. This looks like a probelem with coding. It would be appreciated if Kbdank would help resolve this. - jc37 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is, but only members are userpage monobook pages. Doesn't appear to be useful. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, possibly rename if determined what it is for and that it is useful to categorize. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, support Nom. Plus two of the users listed are the same person. Does not appear useful at all. Master Redyva ♠
From looking at the monobook.js pages, it appears to be part of a script that adds discussions to Category:Ended featured picture nominations. The quotes and plus are probably just there because of the way the script is written. I'm pretty sure this category was never meant to be a category, just a byproduct of the js script that someone actually created. Speedy delete. --Kbdank71 14:50, 8 April 2008 (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 - jc37 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crash Bandicoot fans - see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game and other precedents listed here.

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy delete - per extensive precedent. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Category does not indicate interest in improving encyclopedia in topic area as opposed to Category:WikiProject Video games members. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2008 (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 per consensus and precedent. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like America's Next Top Model - See: Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series. - jc37 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Genre and media categories. - LA @ 09:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, don't see why we should wait- proposed guidelines can take months to become an actual guideline, and that's even when there is consensus. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I concur with VegaDark regarding the proposed guideline -- it may or may not be adopted as a guideline (many of the comments on the talk page are in opposition to one or more parts of the proposal), and it could take months for an outcome to be reached. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:19, 13 April 2008 (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: speedy merge. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Oakland, California for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (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: speedy delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per massive precedent to delete 0-level categories. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Gahhh, I hate stupidity like this. Horologium (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the fact that the es-0 cat disappeared miraculously one day... I don't know what happened but I presume a crackdown took place. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the -0 level language categories were deleted as a result of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2007#0-level categories and several subsequent discussions to clean up the stragglers. This category was created only four days ago, however, so it wasn't around for the original cleanup. Horologium (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Didn't catch that, thanks for replying. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:29, 9 April 2008 (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: speedy delete. I will notify the user of Special:Prefixindex. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per massive precedent to delete individual userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (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. VegaDark (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese Zodiac to Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese astrology

Nominator's rationale: Single-user category; Chinese zodiac is a redirect to Chinese astrology. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/speedy merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge as overcat. —Scouter Sig 14:31, 10 April 2008 (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: speedy rename, but would recommend that the target category not be created ahead of time prior to closing in case a better suggestion comes along (I was considering suggesting "Wikipedian" instead of "Wikipedia", but have since changed my mind. If I hadn't, and we came to a consensus of another name, it would have been rather annoying that the target category had been created already). Additionally, I am deleting the old category even though someone has replaced it with a redirect, as 1) I feel this discussion should show up in the deletion log, and 2) the old category name has no indication it is a user category, which I believe are not good redirects. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contact role accounts to Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts

Speedy rename to clarify that this is a user category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:19, 6 April 2008 (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in television by genre - This category has several issues. First, I don't believe that televisions have genres. Second, I'm not sure that all the members of the category are genres. Third, I don't believe that categorising by something that can be as subjective as a "genre", is a good idea. (Drama, and comedy, in particular.)

Second, I'd like to note that the category creator apparently has strong feelings about this. See this post.) As I've noted on their talk page, the category wasn't so much deleted, as depopulated and renamed, with its purpose more clear in the rename. Per the WP:BRD cycle, I'd like to "think" we've attempted to discuss, but that post is so deliberately belligerant, I've decided to place this before the community to decide.

Incidentally, the subcats of this category are also poorly named ("...animated television"? does the set dance around?), these should probably should be renamed, such as: "...animated television programming", or "...animated television series", or some such. But that can be done in a future nomination. - jc37 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this and any similarly named category, per my comments above. - jc37 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Judging from the linked comment, this category was created due to a misunderstanding. Category:Wikipedians interested in television was not completely deleted -- it was partly emptied and then renamed to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series per the March 14 discussion. The individual subcategories would not have been orphaned (in fact, see the text of the work request). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Genre and media categories. - LA @ 09:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there are probably better, less-subjective ways to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (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, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Like the related categories for basketball (CFD), golf (CFD), and tennis (CFD), these single-user categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played sports as popular as softball or volleyball does not imply either an above-average knowledge of the sports or an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the games. The userboxes are sufficient to convey the information; there is no need to generate lists of users who play the games. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as broad classifications that indicates no expertise in topic nor desire to contribute to the project in the subject areas (unlike listing oneself at Category:WikiProject Volleyball participants or other sports equivalent categories). - Gwguffey (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Not useful to Wikipedia to knows who plays a particular sport. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit, as there is a typo in the current name of the category. There is not a "-" where there should be.--Urban Rose 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. Support per nom. Master Redyva ♠
Speed rename in support of fixing typos. - Gwguffey (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in San Francisco, California for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (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: speedy rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in San Diego, California for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (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: speedy delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive past precedent to delete 0-level categories. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (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 - roughly 2 keeeps, 2 deletes and a neutral. While I typically do more than just "count votes", there was a fair amount of "I don't know" and "possibly" in this discussion. As always, feel free to renominate. - jc37 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat obscure "collect" category, see this and this for similar past precedent. Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize who "collects" anything IMO. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I agree that is not helpful to categorise users based on what they collect; on the other, I wonder whether this category is not in some way reflective of an interest in the subject of model cars (and, by extension, of a willingness or desire to collaborate on articles about such cars). Since I'm unsure about the strength of this relationship (or, for that matter, whether it exists at all), I am neutral for now. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see that some of the collecting categories are useful: coin collecting is related to numanistics, and the Scouting memorabilia category has, from personal experience, so many different levels/types of interest within it. "Model cars" seems so much more... irrelevant than the others though--especially since there was no link to Model car. —Scouter Sig 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Reasonably useful, in theory, per the above comments. I would not be opposed to some kind of clarification, just to make sure this is how the category is being used (or how it can be used), and revisiting the matter based on that. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll agree that in theory, any user category can be useful, but in practice, much less so. 9 times out of 10, these categories are not created because of a desire to collaborate, or help out, but rather just blindly tacked on to a userbox. The majority of people (if not all of them) in these categories aren't in them to collaborate, they just wanted the userbox and the category came with it. If you really want to see who wants to collaborate on a subject, disengage the userbox from the category. Make the category opt-in, not automatic. Do that, and if people re-add themselves to the category, I'll change my !vote. --Kbdank71 15:02, 7 April 2008 (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: withdrawn - I didn't realize this was free software, hence the images could be indeed usful for other pages. I think "who use" is probably too broad (in that it may categorize users who both are willing to use the program to create images for Wikipedia as well as those who simply "use" the program for fun) so I would probably support a rename of some sort in the future (something like Category:Wikipedians who create images with Celestia?), but that argument would be for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single article category, so collaboration is better accomplished on the talk page. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/precedent. —Scouter Sig 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as of now. —Scouter Sig 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's my understanding that this category doesn't exist necessarily for the article alone, but for those who have a fair understanding of the program, which can be used to other astronomy related areas of Wikipedia. The software itself is a tool for research and other things, in addition to possibly finding people who might help out with the article itself (more of a bonus than the main point). -- Ned Scott 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per previous deletion discussion from December (Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use Celestia). This program apparently has graphics-generation features, which means that it has potential for collaborative use. Horologium (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would any graphics generated using Celestia be free? If not, could their use be justified under the current non-free content criteria? If the answer to either one of these questions is "yes", then keep. If the answer to both is "no", then weak delete per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The program itself is GLP. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had missed that sentence in the article's lead, having skipped directly to reading the "Functions" and "Limitations" sections. ... Anyway, keep per your and Horologium's comments. (I also just noticed that all five images in the article were uploaded under a free license...) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:42, 9 April 2008 (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 per precedent and consensus. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single article category, so collaboration is better accomplished on the talk page. At least needs a rename since Novell Evolution is a redirect to Evolution (software). VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/precedent. —Scouter Sig 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Wikipedians by email client. Using a particular e-mail client does not imply an interest in it; the userbox is more than adequate to convey this information. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (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 (WP:SNOW and clear consensus below) as not facilitating encyclopedic activity. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular (at least in some places) as golf does not imply either an above-average knowledge of the sport or an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the game. The userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment; there is no need to generate a list of users who play the game. Also see the discussions for the related "basketball" and "tennis" categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Master Redyva ♠ 20:03, April 2, 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, does not help Wikipedia to know who plays a particular sport. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is such a broad classification and indicates no expertise in topic nor willingness to do work in the subject, unlike listing oneself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf#Members. The same affinity for the sport could be expressed via display of ((User:UBX/Golfer)) on userpage. Gwguffey (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Following up to my last statement: ((User:UBX/Golfer)) automatically populates this category, so the userbox would need to be edited if cat is deleted. Gwguffey (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/precedent, and modify the userbox. —Scouter Sig 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many people play golf for this to really be useful. -- Ned Scott 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above statements.--Urban Rose 15:26, 5 April 2008 (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: speedy delete (G6 - uncontroversial housekeeping) as replaced by Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gustavus Adolphus College. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No users in category, only member is a userbox template. Improper naming convention for an alma matter category. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (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: speedy delete (G4 - recreation of deleted material): this is a recreation of Category:Hippy Wikipedians, which was deleted per this discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, empty except for userbox template, does not help encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (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: speedy delete (G4 - recreation of deleted material) by Howcheng. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, improper naming convention, crap category. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; in principle, this is a recreation of Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators (see discussion), and so may be subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4 (recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (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 28

Category:Wikipedians in Seattle

Category:Users who speak Albanian

Category:Wikipedians who use findcode

Category:WikiOtters

Category:Popping Wikipedians

April 27

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping

Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ussri Bobby

April 26

Category:Sahrawi Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians in Baltimore

Category:Cooch Behar Wikipedians

Category:Lazy Wikipedians

Category:Wood Badger Wikipedians

Category:Swedish-American Wikipedians

Wikipedia patrols

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television

Category:Wikipedians interested in television game shows

April 23

Category:Wikipedians who like Top Gear

April 22

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries

Category:Ataturk Wikipedians

Category:Canadian Wikipedians of Indian origin

Category:Daemian Wikipedians

Category:Manta ray Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians in Las Vegas

Category:User szl-0

April 21

Category:Wikipedians of Don Cossack ancestry

Category:Users from Satu Mare

April 17

Category:Wikipedians interested in history

Category:Wikipedians in South Florida

Category:Wikipedians interested in Tang-e Bolaghi

Category:Wikipedians by operating system

Category:Wikipedians in Boston

Category:Wikipedians in St. Louis

April 15

Category:Wikipedians who like Johnny Cash

Category:Wikipedians who listen to country or bluegrass

Category:Wikipedians who listen to industrial metal

Category:Wikipedians who listen to noise music

April 13

Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television

Category:Wikipedians who are forgetful

Wikipedians by ancestry

Category:User gsw-M

Category:User:Blood Lines of Darkness Pages

Category:User gsw-0

April 12

Category:Wikipedians in Livermore (San Francisco Bay Area)

Category:Wikipedian Firefighters

Category:Wikipedians Firefighters

Category:Wikipedians who believe that account creation should be required on Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedians who believe that account creation should be required on Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball fans, its subcategories, and all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams

April 11

Category:Wikipedians in Sacramento

Category:Wikipedians who like Boards of Canada

Category:Wikipedian vandalism pages

Category:Wikipedian Atlanta Braves fans

April 10

Category:Wikipedians in the East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area)

April 7

Category:User pages displaying userboxes and corresponding code

Category:Wikipedians who use Internet Explorer (subcategories only)

Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations

Category:Crash Bandicoot fans

Category:Wikipedians who like America's Next Top Model

Category:Wikipedians in Oakland

Category:User jv-0

Category:Templates on User:Nicolasjager

April 6

Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese zodiac

Category:Contact role accounts

April 5