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: double upmerge. Wizardman 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a redundant category, as both Category:Wikipedians in Chile and Category:American_Wikipedians already cover this. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from WP:CFD. Procedural relisting at correct forum. Bencherlite^Talk 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge to Category:Chilean Wikipedians and Category:American Wikipedians. The scope of the category is too narrow and, more generally, I don't believe it facilitates encyclopedic collaboration. I don't think one can assume that Chilean Americans possess an above-average ability or desire to collaborate on articles about Chilean American people, organisations, culture, and the like. Some likely will, but others will not. In general, I don't think we can judge about editors' interests and abilities solely on the basis of their identities (e.g. I edit articles related mostly to Africa, yet have no personal connection to the contintent). A similar case can be found at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Arab Canadian Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Double upmerge per above. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 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 Alaska WODUP (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Interior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This page is for Wikipedians from Fairbanks, the Tanana Valley, and elsewhere in the Interior region of Alaska." - Needs a rename to clarify what the category is for at minimum. However, this is a single user category, so my first choice would be to upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Alaska. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 3 March 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 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While the Sims probably has enough articles to collaborate on, this category is populated by a lone userbox page with no actual users. Additionally, the userbox text is "This user enjoys playing the Sims", so any users adding the userbox would be miscategorized. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom, without prejudice of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - miscategorisation: "enjoys playing the Sims" != interested in improving articles related to the Sims. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:46, 29 February 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 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wild food has been deleted, so this category can not facilitate collaboration. Single-user category that has existed over a year. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - serves no purpose. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. No article=no cat. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 3 March 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 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single user category despite existing for nearly 3 years, does not help the encyclopedia to categorize those who are invited to particular wiki-meetups. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - even if this category was useful at some point in the past, it is not useful anymore. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 12:24, 4 March 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 Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history - jc37 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in classical antiquity

Nominator's rationale: Antiquity is a disambiguation page, and the term may refer to classical antiquity or ancient history in general. Judging from the page description and userbox, the category seems to be oriented toward the former meaning. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history - At best, (and only if renamed per nom) this should be a parent cat divided by the subsections of Classical antiquity. (Category:Wikipedians interested in the Roman empire, for example.) - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are "interest" categories for ancient Carthage, Egypt, Greece, Persia and Rome, but all are currently subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history and Category:Wikipedians interested in a region. I suppose it boils down to the question of whether an intermediary layer of categorisation for "classical antiquity" is needed... All in all, I can't say that I oppose upmerging. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:45, 24 February 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) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Jc37. to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history , but keep as a real category for the broadly interested, not just a parent. DGG (talk) 06:54, 5 March 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 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Kosovo independence supporters to article Wikipedians who support Kosovo's independence

Nominator's rationale: Category meant for userboxes improperly named. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to WP:UCFD Otto4711 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to UCFD from CFD by me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as support/oppose category. VegaDark (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark. --Kbdank71 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per VegaDark and precedent. Horologium (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT as a political issue support/oppose category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:43, 29 February 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) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User nds-NL

Category:User nds-NL-1

single user cat. It seems that the user has created this cat on several language Wikipedias (with it having been apparently deleted on one of them), though still being a single user cat in those places as well. If no consensus to delete, upmerge -1 to the parent. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as nom. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, as useless as all the Babel categories. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'comment on previous deletion rationale. My own experience of babel categories is that they are by far the most useful. Just to give an example: a question of notability about an Egyptian TV presenter might better be answered by someone with Arabic who is not on a TV-project, than by anybody particularly involved in TV projects. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever exist in a particular language/dialect, IMO we should delete the category for it. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark. --Kbdank71 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or up-merge. I'm not sure what the problem here is, nor am I aware of the "needs a local Wiki" requirement. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upmerge to Category:User nds and Category:User nds-1. I think that "regional dialect" categories (see here for past discussions) do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The primary usefulness of the Babel categories lies in their relationship to translation, yet regional dialects generally differ from the main language in terms of speech rather than writing, and it is the latter that is relevant to collaborative translation efforts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Useless categories that are lonely, with only one user each. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not anything other than a dialect of Dutch, and doesn't need a cat, and especially doesn't need Babelization for a single user. Horologium (talk) 20:52, 3 March 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) 07:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Torlak - single user category, and one of a regional dialect. - jc37 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per several precedents, as nominator. - jc37 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as useless as all other user-by-language categories. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If a Wikipedia doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever exist in a particular language/dialect, IMO we should delete the category for it. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark (I'm seeing a pattern here...) --Kbdank71 19:43, 25 February 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. Although being a single-user category is a common reason for deletion (or merging), the fact that the category was created relatively recently and was created for a specifically collaborative purpose suggests that it may be appropriate to "give it time to grow". (I will not address the issue of how much value is inherent in a user category for a topic that is already covered by an active WikiProject, as there does not seem to be clear consensus on the issue -- similar questions have been raised in prior discussions, and my perception is based as much on the content of prior discussions as it is on this one.) Since the category's creator and sole member has expressed support for deletion if the category does not attract new members within a month of its creation, it might be best to revisit the issue in a few weeks, assuming no new arguments or ideas for renaming/reorganising are developed before then. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles (See bibliophile)

or

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to category:Wikipedians interested in book history (See History of the book)

or

Delete - single member category.

See also comments at Category talk:Wikipedians interested in books as objects - jc37 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Unsure as yet, waiting for more discussion. - jc37 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not help users contribute to writing an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the two rename proposals would result in single-article categories, which is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Collaboration can occur on the talk pages of bibliophile and History of the book, a category is not necessary for this. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that everybody who is willing to share their expertise will be going out of their way to contribute to talkpages. -Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to give it time to grow, I know from the first discussion on the depopulating of Wikipedians interested in books that there may be people out there that are interested in books themselves, not the contents. This could be the a category of people who would improve articles on such things as book binding, book publishing methods, book media, history of books, etc. Since Wikipedians interested in books was depopulated such a short time ago, and this category created in response to that, give it time to grow. I suggest that it be revisited in a few months. - LA @ 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  People who would improve articles on book binding, publishing methods, etc., etc., can and should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Participants. There's no need for a category. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of wikiprojects is that they bring together those interested in systematically contributing to wikipedia in a particular field. I am already a member of two; more would rather overload me. Categories, in contrast, are a way of finding people with expertise in a particular field even if it is not the main area of their activity on wikipedia (at least, that's how I use them). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Paularblaster says, WikiProjects are just one of many ways we collaborate, and a full-on project is not always required. In fact, WP:PROJECT's guidelines even recommend topical collaboration outside of a WikiProject when that's all that is needed. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, there is an existing WikiProject. And even collaboration outside WikiProjects doesn't require categories. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing requires anything, but it helps. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• creator's comment. I recently created this category, with this name, to replace the now defunct "bibliophile" category which seems to have become an overpopulated catch-all for people interested in books in a variety of senses (also, incidentally, a problem with Wikiproject Books, which is more about literature than it is about books). The category is not intended exclusively for book historians, but also for those interested in book design, layout, bindings, etc. Hence neither "bibliophile" (which people take simply to mean "likes books") nor "book history" seemed entirely appropriate. The purpose is to provide a category for those willing to provide expertise in these areas even if their main contributions to wikipedia fall outside this field. I am myself an academic specializing in 16th and 17th-century print culture, but wikipedia is a hobby: my contributions are in areas that interest me more incidentally (and in any case it would be hard not to fall into OR, on top of which wikipedia is not a form of publication that looks good on an academic CV); nevertheless, I am perfectly happy to make my expertise available for anyone asking for it. This, I would have thought, is the reason for having categories as well as projects. If, in a month's time, nobody else has added themselves to the category then I would certainly be in favour of deletion. I should say, as the creator of this category, it would have been nice to receive notification of this discussion rather than stumble upon it - but CfD and AfD seem to have rather different etiquette. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my above comment. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 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, though a good discussion. This "nom" turned into an educational discussion and then a brainstorming discussion. Nothing wrong with that, imho. - jc37 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to reopen the discussion on the emptying of this category and making it a parent category. I was unaware of the original discussion until the category was "removed" from my user page. Emptying of this category does not seem to be a good idea, and this is why. If you look at that page, I put all possible categories that I would belong to on that page. (I haven't created them yet, since I am the only member.) That is a lot of categories which would get created in the place of this one. There will be others who are far more read that I am, so their pages could have even more categories than that. Do we really want that many new user categories springing up, or do we want to keep it nice and simple? - LA @ 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If that does not suit, would there be any problem with me creating a sign up page in the Wikipedia name space called Wikipedia:Wikipedians interested in books sign up so that categories could be created if there is enough interest in a genre, author, or series. - LA @ 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In looking over the list of cats you made, a couple things: most of the author ones would be valid categories, presuming that enough Wikipedians would be interested in being included. The individual books, not so much. Unless it's a book series, or in some way can help with collaborating on more than a couple articles, it's likely to be nominated for deletion. And several of the TV series novella tie-in cats would likely be nominated for merging to "Wikipedians interested in x TV series". (Wikipedians interested in Star Trek, for example). - jc37 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason the category was depopulated was because it was far too broad for effective collaboration. I have an interest in books by Jonathan Kellerman, Stuart Woods and Dale Brown; my friend is enormously fond of the novels of Benito Pérez Galdós and Edith Wharton. Are you able and willing to collaborate on their works? (Galdós, in particular, needs some attention; very few of his works have articles in the English Wikipedia.) Additionally, some of the "categories" in your list are far too narrow for collaboration, or are duplicative; we don't need separate categories for Xanth and Piers Anthony, or for all of the varieties of the D&D and Star Trek universes; consolidating them and others like them will reduce your list by about half. Note that Category:Wikipedians who read science fiction already exists; it is a useful category. The "books" category is not useful as a collaborative tool in and of itself, but it is useful as an organizational category, with users sorted into smaller subcategories. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that I wouldn't be able to collaborate on articles by those authors. The categories on my list however all have plenty of articles that can go with them. Piers Anthony does not equal Xanth. I have several of his series listed on that page; the Apprentice Adept series, the Bio of a Space Tyrant series, the Incarnations of Immortality series, and the Mode series. Also, there are hundreds of Star Trek books out there based on the various series (I think there are over a hundred for the original series alone), and then the technical manuals through the years. There are also probably hundreds of TSR RPG and White Wolf RPG based novels out there. The narrowing is needed. I saw that the scifi category was created, but a lot of genres are still missing. - LA @ 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for organization purposes--and if some people do think they fit in it best in a very general way. Nothing wrong with that, either. They may either have very broad tastes, or be very unsophisticated. DGG (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could be also very well read, so well read that they would have a worse list of categories than I would if all of those every get created. - LA @ 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a parent category, keep depopulated of individual users per last discussion. If you wish to create a bunch of "books by series/genre" categories, that is your prerogative, but I would recommend you make sure the scope of the categories are not too narrow, and also that more people besides you will join the categories within a few days of creation (as we often delete single-user categories). VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of other notes: If this were AfD, this would be speedy closed. Debates should not be re-opened like this so soon after closing (unless no consensus was reached, and even if that were the case this would be a bit soon), and therefore I support a speedy close. If you disagree with the last close you should go to WP:DRV. Additionally, I would support deleting all current "who read" categories, as "who read" certainly doesn't translate to "interested in collaborating on". I've read tons of books I have no interest in collaborating on, and like the nominator mentions, they have a category prepared for "all possible categories" that they could belong to. This isn't helpful to Wikipedia in the least unless you plan on actually collaborating through all those categories. I would support an "Interested in" naming convention by author (and perhaps by series, depending on the number of books in the series that such a category could support collaboration on), but "who read" includes too many people unlikely to collaborate that it makes it not useful (for instance, people who hated a book could theoretically add themselves to the category, simply because it applies to them, but obviously wouldn't want to collaborate on such articles). Some books are practically manditory reading in middle school/high school, so many such "who read" categories could be close to all-inclusive (Category:Wikipedians who read Shakespeare, for instance, which thankfully currently doesn't exist). Category:Wikipedians interested in Shakespeare, though? I'd definitely support such a category. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The convention of "Wikipedians who read..." was established some time ago, and that convention is noted on the category page for Category:Wikipedians interested in books; while "Wikipedians interested in..." more clearly conveys the collaborative potential for the category, it would require a great deal of work to rename the currently named categories, and additionally runs the risk of miscategorizing editors who enjoyed a book but have no intention of contributing to its article. Changing the currently named categories is likely to anger many editors for very little practical gain, as the difference between "who have read" and "interested in" is not very broad. There is a potential solution to the problem, but that proposal didn't meet with anywhere near enough support to push it any farther. Horologium (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't know about the next step of the process, since I had never used it before. The last time I put a user category up for discussion, there wasn't a separate section especially for user categories. I didn't know if there was a next step process in this area. If this discussion could be moved there without loss, I would do it. My question is, when were user categories so constricted that they are only for collaboration purposes? Are you saying that there are categories deleted just because they couldn't lead to collaboration, that there is a push to get rid of all community building categories? That is just plain sad to see. I like editing Wikipedia and seeing what a group of people can do to make the world a much more informed place, but I would also like to get to know those with whom I am editing. Sometimes the only way to do that is through little boxes and the categories they can create. - LA @ 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if you recall (since it was some time ago), but I also was involved in the userbox (re-)organisation efforts. I strongly support community building, and feel that that can be a good, though indirect, way to help contribute and promote collaboration among Wikipedians. That said, in general, category space just shouldn't be used for that. After months (years) of discussions, it's clear that the category system (all categories, not just Wikipedian cats) should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. (Categories being navigational tools.) If there is something noteworthy to place in the article, place it in the article! If one wants to place a notice on their userpage, add some text, or a userbox, but don't use the category system for it. - jc37 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all its subcategories, as none of them helps users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that's obviously not true. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, yes it is. A category of users interested in books doesn't do anything to help the encyclopedia. WikiProject Books is the place for book-related collaboration. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly support keeping depopulated as a parent category - Individual subcats are more useful for navigation in this case. - jc37 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DGG's comment sums up my own view pretty well. I have no problem with this being only a parent category, but at the same time I don't see what's going on now as a problem. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is discussing deleting the category, Ned. This was brought up because of an editor objecting to being removed from the cat when it was depopulated as an organizational cat. Horologium (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, except for Angr. He did advocate deletion. Horologium (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (to Horologium) Then replace "keep" with "supporting X" or whatever, it's still pretty obvious what I'm saying. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addendum[edit]

Would you support my suggestion in the addendum above? No one has mentioned it, so I feel the necessity to mention that it is there, but perhaps unread. - LA @ 08:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't support that, at least not in project space. For specific series or genres, a note dropped in the talk page for the main page of the series or genre about the possibility of forming a user category should be sufficient to identify if there is enough interest. I'm not strongly opposed, though, and might be convinced to support your proposal, although I think it needs a different name that what you have proposed. Horologium (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is basically the reverse of what Wikipedia:User categories for discussion is usually used for which is the deletion of categories. The "sign up" page would be for discussing creating user categories for authors, genres, or series. As I said earlier in regard to the red linked categories on my books page, I am not going to create them until I know there are enough people to make them worth creating. I could add this categorization to the current book template with a cautionary note to suggest the creation of new categories on the "sign up" page. I could put it at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians who read books subcategory suggestions or similar.

Here is what I would put on the top of the suggested page...

Does that suit? - LA @ 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your addendum sounds like the sort of thing that might be handled as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, with such a page perhaps serving as a useful means of organizing specific task force|task forces, like the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld. It could be a very good idea to have such a sign-up, I would think, if it would attract interested editors into collaborating on articles, even if they don't form specialized task forces. I don't know if user categories are the best way of organizing such collaborations or not. The problem inherent in any Wikipedia sign-up procedure, of course, is that people don't unsign on becoming inactive and that many active editors who might participate never know the possibility exists. That difficulty is way beyond the scope of this discussion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moonriddengirl, I can name at least 20 different WikiProjects and task forces that deal with books in one way or another. The sane and organized creation of these subcategories is pan-project. Believe me, it needs to be on its own. - LA @ 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals as a place where you might get more focused feedback, but from your contribution page it seems you don't need me to point that out. :) I'll note that I was evidently slowly composing the above comment as you placed your note @14:33, because my comment was in reply to your note of 13:26. I will never understand how edit conflicts work...and don't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 February 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: Keep - That said, I'm going to list this on the /working page as a speedy rename to add the word "Wikipedian", per long convention. - jc37 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At minimum, this category needs a rename, since it is not categorizing user names, it is categorizing the users themselves. Additionally, however, I'm not entirely sure this category is useful at all. Users are automatically added to this category when Template:uw-username is added to their page. There is no indication what the requirements are for a user to legitimately "express concern" over a username, nor any indication that the category is actually ever used to find users to username block. The policy on usernames says to bring concerning usernames to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which I think is a much better solution than adding them to this category. Additionally, the category has become large and unwieldy due to users in the category who actually are blocked not being removed, so using the category to find people to block is a shot in the dark. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom, or rename to Category:Wikipedians with usernames editors have expressed concern over if no consensus to delete, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I agree that WP:UAA is a more practical solution for reasons put forth above. --Kbdank71 14:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reform. Nominator seems to have misunderstood the purpose of this category. It is not for users that are to be blocked. Instead, the ((uw-username)) template is used for usernames that are not blatant enough to be reported to WP:UAA, but where discussion is needed. The purpose of this category is to keep track of usernames where discussion has started, and after a reasonable period of time, either mark the concern as relieved or report the user to WP:RFCN. However, this category is not working because, as VegaDark says, blocked users and users where concern is relieved are not removed from the category. But this is not a problem with the category itself, but the way it is used. I therefore propose that the category be kept, and a note be posted to WT:U reminding people to remove blocked names (probably a bot can be set up to do this). Is he back? (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that User:DusterBot is supposed to remove blocked users from this category, but it stopped working in October. I will notify the bot owner. Is he back? (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If all the "dealt with" users were out of the category, so only those who have had the template on their page for less than 5 days were listed, then it could indeed make the category managable and possibly useful. It would still need a rename, however. Do you oppose renaming? VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not firmly opposed to a rename, but I don't really see the need either. Note that there are several bots that use this category, including DusterBot (see above) and the HBC AIV helperbots who identify users in this category that are reported to UAA, in order to inform admins that discussion has been attempted. If consensus is that a rename is required, this should be checked with the bot owners to make sure that the rename does not break any bots. But then again, it seems that the rename is only for semantic reasons and I don't think it is really necessary. Is he back? (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Is he back?. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for entertainment value. Funny names.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful category. If DusterBot doesen't come back up soon, I'd be willing to look at creating a replacement. SQL^{Query me!} 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - UAA can only really be used for blatantly inappropriate or promotional usernames. Granted there's a few accounts on that list that could probably go right to UAA straight away, but there are many on there who aren't. If anything, it's useful for keeping an eye on potential joke names. SMC (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's very useful for keeping an eye on usernames which aren't quite inappropriate enough for reporting to WP:UAA. EJF (talk) 12:27, 1 March 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. Wizardman 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This is a group nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio and its subcategories. Detailed nomination rationales for the subcategories are offered below.

Nominator's rationale: This category is too vague to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration – indeed, it is too vague to be useful as anything other than a parent category. "Radio" can refer to the "medium of wireless communication" in general, specific radio technologies, the activity of radio broadcasting, specific radio broadcasts, radio frequencies, the electronic device, and a host of other things. Since there is no reason to expect that an interest in one implies an interest the others, the category effectively fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains.

• If all subcategories are deleted, then delete; if all subcategories are not deleted, then depopulate of user pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the above. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and let people choose how specific they wish to be. DGG (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate, keep as a parent category if any of the subcategories remain. If not, delete as empty, but allow recreation as a parent category if suitable subcategories are ever created (currently I would support deleting all subcategories, but I could support keeping some subcategories if they had an "interested in" naming convention). VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete parent category and all subcategories. None of them helps users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you new here? That's obviously not true. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been here about a year longer than you have, and it obviously is true. User categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you're just blind. This isn't something "in theory", it's something that actually happens on a daily bases. I've contacted other editors via such categories, and I've been contacted via similar categories. Facts would suggest that your generalization that all user cats are useless is wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the personal attack. Arguing with people is so much easier when they undermine themselves. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Angr. I'm interested in lots of things, watch many tv shows and listen to different radio shows, none of which I have an interest in writing about. --Kbdank71 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep either as a parent category, or as a non-detailed interest category per DGG. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 20 days later... I don't whether this discussion is a difficult one to close or whether it's just escaped notice for such a long time. In any case, in the hope of restarting the process (or the conversation), I'm posting a brief recap of the discussion (if I inaccurately or inadequately represent one or more arguments, please modify my comments as necessary and feel free to hurl a fish or two in my direction -- I prefer salmon, by the way.)

  Of 7 participants, 2 support straightforward deletion, 3 support deletion contingent on deletion of the subcats (see the nominations below), and 2 oppose deletion. The arguments offered include:

  For deleting

  does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration or help users to write an encyclopedia - reasons vary but include:

  "too vague to be useful ... fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains"

  "user categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building"

  interest in something, watching a TV programme, or listening to a radio show does not translate into an interesting in writing about these subjects

  For keeping

  editors should be allowed to "choose how specific they wish to be"

  Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, some of the subcategories are now on deletion review, so I don't know if this can be closed until that is over. If that closes as endorse, this looks like a pretty clear delete. If it closes as overturn and relist, then this will likely have to wait even longer to be closed until after the relisted categories get closed. *yawn* VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If the DRV results in "relist", I suggest they be subcats of Category:Wikipedians by radio series (which I just created). Category:Wikipedians interested in radio should be a parent cat, if kept at all. That said, I think a parent of a different name may be in order. (See: Serial (radio and television) for more information.) So either way, I support depopulation (and possibly deletion) of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio. - jc37 17:09, 14 March 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. east.718 at 04:19, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Car Talk - zero-user, single-article (Car Talk) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern - (The Howard Stern Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Le Show - single-user, single-article (Le Show) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and the Mad Dog - single-article category (Mike and the Mad Dog)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and Mike in the Morning - single-article category (Mike and Mike in the Morning)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nobody Likes Onions - single-user, single-article (Nobody Likes Onions) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Opie and Anthony - single-article category (Opie and Anthony)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush Limbaugh - (The Rush Limbaugh Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Ed Schultz Show - single-user, single-article (The Ed Schultz Show) category

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Herd - single-article category (The Herd with Colin Cowherd)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Iain Lee Show - single-user category, lacks a corresponding article (The Iain Lee Show, Iain Lee Show), the show is mentioned in the Iain Lee biographical article

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Stephanie Miller Show - single-article category (The Stephanie Miller Show)

Nominator's rationale: The collaborative potential of these categories, if any, is in most cases limited to one article only. Moreover, it is questionable whether merely listening to a radio talk show implies any type of above-average ability or desire to improve articles about these shows. Knowledge of what was said on a talk show, which is the type of knowledge that is most likely to be gained from listening to the show, is not especially useful in an encyclopedic context, for two reasons. First, additions based on such knowledge are likely to be minor trivia -- although there will be exceptions. Second, per WP:UNDUE, articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". That is, that something was stated on a radio talk show should be mentioned in an article only if reliable sources deem it noteworthy, irrespective of how important, interesting, or controversial an individual user thinks it to be. In the end, the knowledge that matters is knowledge of and access to these reliable sources, not knowledge of the transcript of a talk show.

• Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Not a whole lot I could add to that, so I'll just say "per nom" : ) - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These categories are not useful for collaboration in any way, unlike the network categories below. Horologium (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, and my comments above. --Kbdank71 19:49, 25 February 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. east.718 at 04:20, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue - (I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue}

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Just a Minute - (Just a Minute)

Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

• Delete both as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I think that these are similar to those who watch game shows, noting though that the former is a parody, and both are comedic. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Categorizing by "who listens" simply does not translate to "interested in collaborating on". Additionally, the scope seems too narrow for a category. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. --Kbdank71 19:50, 25 February 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show - (The Goon Show)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Navy Lark - (The Navy Lark)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Round the Horne - (Round the Horne)

Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

• Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - If we keep TV series, then we should keep these. Same reasons, same rationales. We shouldn't discriminate by media type. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While I agree with jc37 that it might create a double standard to delete these but keep the TV series categories, I fully support deleting (or renaming) all the tv series categories, so I have no proplem with dealing with these first. Additionally the TV categories will have articles on individual episodes to collaborate on, which the radio shows will not have, so I'm not even entirely convinced that if we have those we should keep these. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 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: deleted by User:East718. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Potentially divisive, "not" category, lots of precedent to delete. Listing in speedy for another admin to confirm. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This seems to be more a "Support/Oppose" cat. Should probably be moved to main nomination section. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A nonsense category, per nom. seicer | talk | contribs 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as divisive; this will not help build the encyclopedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as per other similar catgs deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 23 February 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 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. The userbox is sufficient to convey this information. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Xbox Ambassadors have shown themselves to be willing to assist other Xbox users with problems and having a category for those looking for assistance that may have to do with both Xbox and Wikipedia is worthwhile. the category has utility, moreso than many other user-affiliation categories. furthermore, nominator has not proved disutility. xenocidic (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't care anymore. Whatever BlackFalcon decides. xenocidic (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. A userbox is sufficient for this. There's no need to clutter up WP with redundant or useless categories that are not wholly relevant to WP. Seicer (t | c) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The same argument could be made against Category:Rouge editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 'clutter' argument fails Wikipedia:PERFORMANCE. xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (incidentally, I intend to nominate that category shortly). As for WP:PERFORMANCE, it makes an argument about server space and server performance only; however, clutter also impedes the ability of human editors to navigate through and make use of user categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'm aware my argument was a logical fallacy. It was also an argumentum ad hominem, but you missed the bonus points for that one. =) xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I missed that. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Rogue editors actually came about from a mess at ANI over Category:Rogue Administrators. Seicer (t | c) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is essentially a form of "Wikipedians by gaming website". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) - rationale changed Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite. Xbox Ambassadors are hand picked by Microsoft staff. xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My impression of Xbox Ambassadors, after having read the relevant section in the main article, is that they are the equivalents of Wikipedia administrators: "hand picked community members" who are supposed to be "helpful towards other ... members and are willing to assist new ... users". That is, their designation is more likely to reflect their experience, commitment, and personality than any subject-specific knowledge. Is that not (mostly) accurate? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly, but they do have working knowledge of Xbox 360, Xbox Live, and Microsoft support channels. xenocidic (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• By "working knowledge", do you mean knowledge needed to operate a Xbox 360 and work in/with Xbox Live or knowledge that could be relevant to making non-original research contributions to articles? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Being Xbox Ambassadors they are much more in touch with the Xbox "scene" than run-of-the-mill Xbox users would be. Wikipedians who are also Xbox Ambassadors are very likely to contribute relevantly to articles, which is why I humbly maintain the category is worthwhile. xenocidic (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification. I'll need a little time to think about this, and I will post back here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for listening to my arguments. I respect whatever decision you make in this matter. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After reviewing this page, I still support deletion, although for a diffrent reason. While I can see how this type of categorisation could hypothetically be useful in some cases, I don't feel that this type of category is a good way of categorising users with the ability and/or desire to contribute to articles related to Xbox. It seems to me that "Wikipedians by alternate website status" are too prone to categorisation-for-identification as opposed to categorisation-for-collaboration, and would support independent creation of a more directly collaboration-oriented (e.g. interest) category for Xbox. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom and Black Falcon. The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was under the impression that these are not supposed to be votes, but a venue for building consensus. If you have nothing at all to add to the discussion, why bother? xenocidic (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So you have to participate in the discussion to comment on deletion, when the points have already been made? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a vote. If you have nothing to add, then there's no reason to comment. It's unhelpful. xenocidic (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone above. In addition to that there is a genuine problem here. Your arguments basically amount to "we were hand-picked by X organization or company hence we should have a user category to locate each other". That is fundamentally wrong. I don't have a problem with a category for users interested in Xbox but this isn't it. No one is stopping you from contributing to Wikipedia regardless of the category, you don't need it so we don't need to make an exception. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Xbox Ambassadors are, by their very nature, interested in Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of performing the actions required to be selected. on a related note, Interesting quote by nominator -

(source). By their own words, the nominator seems to support this category. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding others for a Wikipedia-furthering purpose, is what the implication was. I don't believe this category does that (although I would support a category called "Wikipedians interested in Xbox" or something similar). VegaDark (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Having read up on usercats, I am beginning to see the reason why this usercat might not qualify for the proposal and have changed my vote to "don't care anymore". It was a fun argument, while it lasted. No hard feelings. xenocidic (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are missing the point. This category serves one purpose only, to allow people hand-picked by Microsoft as ambassadors to find each other. Any other purpose can be achieved through a broader category. No thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too myspace for a encyclopedia.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dozens of myspacian listings, but you comment only on the Xbox 360-related ones? Thanks for your input "Playstation" dude. xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 25 February 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 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most people "like" Xbox 360 i'd imagine. Not helpful to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is you wanna delete this you better delete all other "Wikipedians who like" categories. This is an outrage. --123Pie (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not exactly true, although many have been deleted (see here). It's all a matter of how much of a relationship there seems to be between a particular "like" and an interest in improving the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedian's who like Xbox 360 are very likely to improve Xbox 360 related articles. xenocidic (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That statement must assume either that any random like can translate into an encyclopedically-relevant interest or that there is something special about Xbox 360. I personally don't feel that either assumption is justified (e.g. I like luxury cars, yet I'm not at all likely to improve articles related to luxury cars). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per drive-by nomination with dubious justification. xenocidic (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, If this get change from like to have, can it stay? --Pie's can talk! 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would introduce miscategorization problems (people who like the 360 might not own one). I don't see why this category needs deleted in the first place, let's let the CFD run its' course. xenocidic (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a grouping of users who like an admittedly nifty piece of electronic equipment does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. People like many objects, including Xbox 360s, luxury cars, gold watches, jewelry, expensive laptops, but it does not help to create groupings of users on the basis of these likes. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the same argument not apply to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_who_watch ? But in those, you only proposed renamed. xenocidic (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, perhaps not. More than anything, that was a procedural nomination, and it's possible that I'll later nominate one or more of those categories for deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not an extension of MySpace. What will we have next? Those who like the Nintendo Wii? Computers? Halo? A Butterfinger's candy bar? The list can go on, and we'd be stuck with hundreds of trivial categories that do not add value to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Seicer (t | c) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it was meant to be so Xbox users can find other Xbox users and ask for help, as wikipedians are serposed to help. --Pie's can talk! 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For general help regarding questions unrelated to Wikipedia, there is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. However, in general, we don't (and shouldn't) maintain lists of users for reasons that are unrelated to building the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Seicer (t | c) and per nom. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, gives me a list of people to track down and shoot their Xboxen with my Three Ring Ray of Doom. I'm kidding, of course, this isn't a useful category. Editors who need to discuss 360-related articles will naturally find each other via the talk pages. Sockatume (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Too myspace for a encyclopedia.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:28, 25 February 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 CSD C1 (empty category) and CSD G7 (author request). The category (and userbox) creator emptied the category and consented to deletion at the category talk page. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Meher Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual, categorizing by individual is too narrow for collaboration. Possibly redundant to Category:Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just because it's "one person" doesn't mean anything one way or another. ((Meher Baba)) alone suggests that this is a perfectly good user category, and is not too narrow for collaboration. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:23, 29 February 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: see below. There are three main issue at stake: purpose, scope and WP:POINT.

I don't think that anyone disputes that this category does not (directly, at least) facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. In fact, it is marked as a humour category. Given that there is precedent for retaining some humour pages, the question then becomes whether this should be such a case. Without making any judgment on that point specifically, I do wish to note two points:

1. When it comes to categories (as opposed to, say, user pages or pages in the Wikipedia namespace), there is fairly consistent precedent against humour categories (see various discussions linked here).
2. A humour page is effective only if it is generally perceived to be humorous; such a page is not likely to be appropriate if it is a source of controversy, ill will, disruption, or anything else that hurts the encyclopedia or detracts from an atmosphere of collaboration. With this category, there is no consensus that it does not have any negative side-effects.

Various discussions (at UCFD and MFD) have produced a relatively consistent consensus that Wikipedia is not appropriate for random humour that is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. It's safe to say that this catgory is Wikipedia-related, as it was created in response to a specific incident that took place on Wikipedia. This brings us to the third issue...

This category was created in response to a specific incident which involved a certain degree of controversy, hostility, and/or bitterness, and there is no question that it was created to make a point. Whether it is actively disruptive in the process of making this point can be disputed to some extent; however:

1. The point made by the category targets (comments made by) a single user, and said user has expressed dissatisfaction with the existence of this category.
2. In continuing to make a point, the category perpetuates the dispute/conflict/incident. This is most certainly unproductive.

Thus, considering all of these factors together, the result is delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now that the rouge admins category is dealt with, I think this can safely be nominated. WP:POINT creation during that discussion that serves no purpose towards encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for as long as there are editors or admins who haven't read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Aids encyclopædia building by reminding people to read what is on the screen before leaping to judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Junk. – Steel 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nonsense. Seicer (t | c) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. The category that resulted in the creation of this POINTy cat is gone now, and this should disappear as well. Horologium (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insulting nonsense and per WP:POINT. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I must admit that I am wondering what disruption this category causes... -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "...FREAKING BIG HUGE PURPLE BOX" (doesn't really flow presently). xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You can't violate WP:POINT without making a disruption (making a point alone is fine). -- Ned Scott 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ned. Making a point isn't the point of WP:POINT to prohibit :) Only a disruptive action, taken only to make a point, is what WP:POINT prohibits. The mere existence of a category doesn't disrupt anything, unless it's overtly offensive to a specific group or some similar problem, but this doesn't seem to have any such issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:22, 27 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Mostly harmless. There are bigger fish to fry. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is having this category causing a problem? WP:POINT is not violated because there is no disruption. Alexfusco⁵ 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this childish nonsense; the encyclopedia is that way. -_- krimpet✽ 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha. Best rationale ever. I'm convinced. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:24, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:21, 29 February 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. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single article category, hence pointless to have a category for. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - collaborative potential, if any, is limited to one article only: Rövarspråket. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:32, 29 February 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. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008

Category:Wikipedians who try not to worry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless, lots of past precedent to delete similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - random, miscellaneous sentiment (see precedent). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as no content, no users are in the Category. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From the talk page of the category: "I created this page. However, I am okay with it being deleted. I already removed the destination from the user box that pointed to it. Thank you. Tommytocker (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)", thus might qualify for WP:CSD#G7. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 27 February 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) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who liked The Dukes of Hazzard to Category:Wikipedians who like The Dukes of Hazzard liked > like. - jc37 02:08, 21 February 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. WODUP (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons to Category:Wikipedians who like The Waltons liked > like. - jc37 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While I support the rename if the category is to remain, this is a single-user category whose scope is limited to two articles (The Waltons and List of The Waltons episodes) and thus could be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be willing to modify your comment to "Delete, without prejudice for recreation, should there be more collaborative material on the topic, or more Wikipedian interest in the catgeory"? - jc37 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm perfectly OK with that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above (the same logic could probably be used for many other tv show categories), rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial category. Seicer (t | c) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Television series aren't limited to just the show and its episodes (or character pages/lists). And being a series, means that there is more possible contribution material, than one may find for a stand alone show (or a "talk show" for that matter). Someone interested in the show may also be interested in contributing on the actors' articles. (Such as Richard Thomas.) Also, there is the potential for expansion per other TV series articles. (One person's "cruft" is another person's article. The debate continues on...) Just looking over the main article, I see several places for exansion (the later movies, or the new series, for example). - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:57, 24 February 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. Would have prefered not to close this as I participated, but it is unanimous and lack of administrators active here makes it necessary. VegaDark (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate Television - "not" category. Long precedent for deletion. See also WP:UBX#User categories. Populated by User:Blacklemon67/Notliketv. (Which is a prime candidate for MfD itself.) - jc37 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Too much precedent for this to end up as anything but delete without deletion review overturning this precedent, which is doubtful. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial category. Seicer (t | c) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't need it --BLACKLEMON-67 yay! (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Unless I am mistaken, there are no users in this category. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:58, 26 February 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 - was only seeded from a template that has been deleted. --slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe in Hetero marriage - "Support/Oppose issue" category, and at the same time, close to being a "Wikipedians by sexual preference", both of which have been repeatedly deleted in the past. - jc37 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and this improves collaboration and isn't just a random category... how? David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's funny how everyone is avoiding the more serious issue, but it definitely should go. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 21 February 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on Erasmus - See ERASMUS programme:

• "The aim of the ERASMUS Programme is to encourage and support academic mobility of higher education students and teachers within the European Union, the European Economic Area countries of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway as well as candidate countries such as Turkey."
• "The ERASMUS Programme, together with a number of other independent programmes, was incorporated into the Socrates programme when that programme was established in 1995. The Socrates programme ended on 31 December 1999 and was replaced with the Socrates II programme on 24 January 2000. That, in turn, was replaced by the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013 as from 1 January 2007."

So essentially, this single-article cat was an "all-inclusive" cat for any student of "higher learning" from the European Union.

However, it's also now a defunct programme, that's been subsumed by several others. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Erasmus is still the name used for it - its brand as it were - and it is know by that name. It is not about higher learning in general, it is an exchange programme. And further more it is not a normal exchange programme given its design to make it much easier, provide large support grants for students and its cultural impact (the film L'Auberge espagnole, the culture surrounding the programme such as "erasmus parties" and its use usage (compulsory for some courses) across the continent. I'm afraid jc37 has misunderstood the nature of the programme.- J Logan ^t: 11:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Even with that explanation, I'm still looking for how this helps contribution, rather than just interest in a single article (or possibly 2). It seems to me that a userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh like any of them help contribution, what about Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College? Not really the point behind them.- J Logan ^t: 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. As for Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep. They should be deleted too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so long as there are no double standards, getting rather tired of them.- J Logan ^t: 18:23, 24 February 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. I'm also going to go ahead and list Category:Wikipedians who like geometry and Category:Wikipedians who like algebra as renames on the working page, as I feel this is an uncontroversial name change. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like trigonometry to Category:Wikipedians interested in trigonometry - jc37 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - as nom. - jc37 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. After considering the userbox and the subject, I think this is one of the rare cases where "who like" can be renamed to "interested in" without any substantial risk of miscategorisation. By the way, I think there is a similarly-named category for geometry... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and consider tagging and adding to this nomination both Category:Wikipedians who like geometry and Category:Wikipedians who like algebra. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine with me. If so, this should be relisted to that date. Else feel free to nom those two in a separate nom. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you even playing attention? -- Ned Scott 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am. I know this category was brought here for a name change, but I'd rather just have it deleted. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:02, 27 February 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) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Rome to Category:Wikipedians who like Rome (TV series). - jc37 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. - jc37 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename - Seems straightforward. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 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 without prejudice. If we have a future influx of Faroese editors, fair enough, but a one-editor category is pointless. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Faroe Islands - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this category could be useful for obtaining images of places or people in the Faroe Islands, but the single user in the category has not edited in about 4 months (see here)... If deleted, I think it should be without prejudice to recreation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice to recreation - Only one user and less than 50,000 population, which has been the standard to delete so far. Perhaps isolated locations like islands should be exempt from this standard, though? If that is determined, then allow recreation if more than one user is in the category within 5 days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category could potentially foster collaboration, although it has only one user now. But deleting the category wouldn't achieve anything useful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. However, a word of caution is required here. People in the Faroe Islands generally do not want to be categorized as Danes for historical and political reasons that we should respect so no prejudice to recreation if more active Faroese Wikipedians want a category. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation, per above. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and promote population. The only way people will be added is if they know the category exists. Deleting does not make sense with that in mind. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 27 February 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 without prejudice to recreation if more than a single Wikipedian joins the category within a few days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Espoo - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While this is a single-user cat, Espoo is the second-largest city in Finland and so perhaps merits a distinct category. However, since the sole user in the category is inactive (see contributions history) ... weak delete without prejudice to recreation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as single user category, but without prejudice to recreation if it gets more than one user in the category within 5 days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation, per above. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Only one user uses the category, so it is kind of 'lonely'. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and promote population. The only way people will be added is if they know the category exists. Deleting does not make sense with that in mind. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 27 February 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) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are Cajuns to Category:Cajun Wikipedians

Speedy rename to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:10, 20 February 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who listen to BBC Radio 4
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to NPR
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sirius Satellite Radio
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to Air America Radio
• Category:Wikipedians who listen to ESPN Radio - single-user category

These types of categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station does not imply possession of an above-average desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. (These categories could even include people who casually listen to the radio while driving or jogging.) See related precedents here, here and here.

• Delete all as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These cats, unlike previous cats I have voted to delete, are nationwide stations or networks, rather than single-market stations, and there are related categories (programs, personalities) associated with them. For example, it is likely that someone who listens to NPR can contribute to National Public Radio and at least one of the many programs on that network, such as All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Marketplace, Car Talk (which is a single-member subcat), or the multitude of other programs. The same could be said of Air America Radio or BBC Radio 4; AAR, in particular, is likely to have listeners who listen to more than one program on the network. The ESPN category contains two daughter categories (for specific programs), with more than a single user in each (each contains a discrete list, with some overlap), which is a valid use of sub-categorization. Sirius is a bit different; there is little to no relationship between the various channels offered by Sirius other than their medium of transmission. I suspect that most of the editors in this category listen to only one channel or program on Sirius (Howard Stern), which limits the utility of the category for collaboration, as they are interested only in Stern, not in Sirius or any of its other offerings. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. I think that that's a hard sell. If I were to "tune in", and listen to a single show, once a week, that technically makes me a listener of the station, even though I'm only interested in the single show. And what really makes this not work is syndication. If I only listen to Dr. Demento (interesting that the show is merged to the person's article), to what should I attribute my interest in the show? Westwood One? The individual station? No. Seems to vague, and too broad to be useful. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with listeners of NPR and Air America (I have friends who listen to each, to my consternation) is that they are very committed to their networks, and tend to listen to multiple programs on whichever network they favor. I don't want to mis-characterize their audiences, but they tend to be a bit more enthusiastic than listeners to Dr. Demento or other syndicated radio programs. Much as many fans of Rush Limbaugh or Coast to Coast AM are not just casual listeners, AAR attracts a fairly hardcore crowd, and they tend to be fairly knowledgeable about the network and its personalities. This interest in multiple shows under the network banner is what makes the categories possibly useful, unlike Dr. Demento, which is a single show syndicated to a small ad hoc collection of stations, rather than through a full-fledged national network. The same holds true for almost all of the other talkers, whose shows are syndicated individually; the networks offer entire integrated packages of shows. Horologium (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking also of their television counterparts, such as NBC. Just because I may watch The West Wing, doesn't mean I'm knowledgeable about NBC, or (more importantly) interested whatsoever in collaborating/contributing to the NBC article or any of its related articles, save those which have to do with The West Wing. I see the same problem with the radio networks above. Do you disagree? - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV networks are a bit different, as most people watch shows from multiple networks. My interest in Top Chef does not translate to an interest in Bravo, or to NBC Universal, its parent. However, as I noted above, NPR and AAR have devoted followings. I have a good friend who seldom listens to any radio station other than NPR unless he is with friends who don't care for it; another friend didn't listen to the radio at all until an AAR affiliate sprang up near him, and it is the only station to which he listens. The networks grouped above have a more clearly defined focus than, say, Wikipedians who listen to Clear Channel stations or Wikipedians who watch CBS programs, which are somewhat arbitrary groupings, because their only connection is based on ownership (who owns the transmitters), while there tends to be a cohesive, thematic grouping for PBS and AAR. (I am leaving the others out because I have little experience of knowledge of them; I have never had access to BBC4, and don't know much about ESPN. I've already addressed Sirius, which I can support deleting, as it is a grouping similar to the Clear Channel and CBS examples I provided above.) They are not single show groupings (such as the Limbaugh example I noted earlier (which has since been nominated for deletion), so there is a possibility of collaboration that doesn't exist with single-show categories. I am not strongly wedded to my argument, though, and I won't grieve if consensus runs against me here. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:53, 24 February 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 on alternatives for "maintain". Rename "Uruguayan" to "Uruguay". - jc37 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguayan Portal to Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguay Portal

Speedy rename to replace the adjective ("Uruguayan") with the noun ("Uruguay"). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The userbox shown in the category says the user "contributes" to the Uruguayan portal, so I wonder if "who maintain" is the best naming convention we should have for portal categories. I'm thinking "who contribute to" or something else would be better. That being said, it may be a good idea to move this to the main section for further discussion. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to dated section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Support renaming the portal cats to "...who contribute to...". - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also support renaming the portal cats to "...who maintain...", per below. (See how more discussion can make a person waffle between options? : ) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "who maintain" is a better standard, since an editor can make minor contributions to portal pages (e.g. updating links) without really being actively involved in maintaining the portal. Also, the userbox for Portal:Energy (see here) uses the word "maintain"... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But is categorizing such users helpful? I think it would be more helpful to categorize those who contribute, not simply maintain a portal. If we do want to categorize those who maintain portals, does that mean we should have an additional category for those who do more than simply maintain them? I prefer "who contribute to" to "who maintain", but there may yet be a better naming convention I haven't thought of. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Grouping users who maintain a portal creates a collaboration-oriented category, but I'm not sure how helpful it is on its own, since anyone wanting to contact such a user could just leave a message on the portal's talk page. (I suppose that the same could be said of WikiProject membership categories...) My concern with the "who contribute" wording is its ambiguity: does it refer to editors who make minor fixes (e.g. spelling, code) to portal pages, who write the articles that are displayed by portals, or who create a portal's subpages? The first group doesn't seem worth categorising, the second is fairly broad and undefined (one can write articles that fall under the scope of several portals without being involved with any of them), and the third could fall under a general interpretation of "who maintain". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Once a portal is created, it is something that is maintained, which is why I support "maintain". Aligning the category with the name of the Portal is also a good idea, and it is something that Black Falcon has diligently pursued across a wide range of user categories. Horologium (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia, or even maintain a portal. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:52, 24 February 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 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy false-colour astronomy representations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, seems to be limited essentially to one article only: false-colour. Moreover, it is questionable whether the message conveyed by the userbox that populates this category (Template:User FalseColour) has any clear relationship to encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject of false-colour astronomy representations (i.e. an interest in improving articles related to the subject).

• Delete as nominator; if kept, rename to Category:Wikipedians who like false-colour astronomy representations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per this discussion. While the userbox text is weak to support this, such Wikipedians could be helpful in creation/editing photos/graphics/images. - jc37 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you come to that conclusion from a category grouping people who simply proclaim to enjoy the aesthetic value of a particular type of picture? I see nothing from that discussion that leads me to believe that any collaboration potential mentioned is anything more than imagined. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I'm incorrect, but interest in the topic would appear to lend itself to interest in making. (Indeed, who has even heard of the term outside those who are involved in their production, or those who have discussed this here? : ) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone could have stumbled upon the category, wondered what it was, saw a picture and went "cool!" and added themselves to the category. "Who enjoy" is the dealbreaker for me here. That in any category name is doubtful to support collaboration IMO. As named, I don't think it is necessarily safe to assume the users within could help create such images. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:51, 24 February 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. Would have prefered not to close this as I participated, but it is unanimous and lack of administrators active here makes it necessary. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Linkin Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are probably enough articles to support an "interested in" category if independently created, however. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent and per nom. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 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. Wizardman 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the original ECW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of the defunct professional wrestling promotion Extreme Championship Wrestling. If it is judged to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration on articles related to ECW and to have an adequately broad scope, then it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian Extreme Championship Wrestling fans, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians who watch sports.

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm a fan of the original ECW as well, but it doesn't help to categorize that fact as I have no interest at this time to collaborate on related articles. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 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. Wizardman 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as basketball implies neither an above-average knowledge of the sport nor 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.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The same rationale could be said for everything else in Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports, so perhaps a group nom is in order. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware of the other categories. Perhaps this can be a test nomination of sorts? It could clarify whether the nomination rationale has acceptance and, if so, whether this applies to all subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports or is unique to the "basketball" category and perhaps some others. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Not sure how useful it is, but this has nothing to do with WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and I'd much rather get larger community input on this considering the large numbers here. The previous purges leave me with the impression of a weak consensus. I'd likely still support making a better focus from these categories, or making some sort of transition to an acceptable form that is better aimed at collaboration, but these kinds of TfDs get used as "all or nothing" arguments all the time. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The perception that user categories that contain a high number of users should be treated with more caution is often an illusion masked by the fact that such categories are generally populated by one or two userboxes. A category may contain several hundred user pages, but it only takes one editor to make one edit to one userbox to populate the category or to virtually empty it. As for a transition to something aimed at collaboration, I'm all for creating Category:Wikipedians interested in basketball (though, for obvious reasons, I oppose a straightforward rename). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair enough point, and I can't say I really feel strongly about it, but still.. eh, whatever, no big deal. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the issue regarding population of a category by userboxes has come up in previous discussions, so I took a look at User:UBX/Basketball. In this case, it appears that the category is (almost) entirely populated by transclusions and/or substitutions of the userbox: there are 350 category members and ca. 350 transclusions of the userbox. Nonetheless, I think you hit on an important point when you suggested "making a better focus from these categories"; I don't feel that all sports categories should automatically be treated like this one. For instance, some sports have a fairly narrow base of participants and involve a fairly large commitment of time and effort (e.g. BASE jumping); in these cases, I think it's more likely (though not guaranteed) that people will have an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm guessing almost every Wikipedian has played basketball at least one time in their life. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:50, 24 February 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. Wizardman 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who lend at Kiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, is limited to a single article: Kiva (organization).

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 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. Wizardman 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who follow the Chinmaya Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, is essentially limited to two articles only: Chinmaya Mission, Chinmayananda.

• Delete as nominator; if kept, rename to Category:Chinmaya Wikipedians or Category:Chinmaya Mission Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 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 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Unix-like Operating Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are many unix-like operating systems (about 20 are listed here), and each has its own unique features, so this category seems to be too broad to be useful. It could perhaps function as a parent category, but Category:Wikipedians by operating system is not so heavily populated as to require subcategorisation. If kept, the category needs to be renamed to fix the capitalisation of "operating systems".

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the nom. is correct in saying that there are unique differences between all Unix-like O/S's, the enjoyed aspect of them is the Unix qualities. Compare to Microsoft Windows Johnl1479 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I support rename to Wikipedians who use Unix-like operating systems — Johnl1479 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that argument be used for near every user-related category? I propose the ignore the above Johnl1479 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could, but that's no reason to ignore it. All user categories are useless and they should all be deleted. However, they're not all being discussed today. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. However, it could be argued that user's who belong to certain user categories may provide some knowledge to the relating article should any dispute arise. — Johnl1479 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Agree with User:Johnl1479, Unix-like is a broad category, but it shows that the Wikipedian prefers the similarities that the o/s's have in common — 71.197.96.202 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed obvious sockpuppetry vote, as per this edit where Johnl1479 accidentally signed as this IP. VegaDark (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. See Steel's Talk Page for explanation: I neglected to log out of a public terminal — Johnl1479 19:35, 24 February 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 to Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records members per creators comments about intended use of the category, below. - jc37 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I intended to perform the merge, and discovered that the user's WikiProject userbox had apparebtly been deleted, and this cat was inserted in a series of "fans" userboxes, despite the user's comments below. When I removed this category (supposedly "intended" to be for WP:G-UNIT) from those fan userboxes, the category was empty. Therefore, Delete as C1 - empty of those for whom it was intended. - jc37 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fan of G-Unit Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is for "fans of G-Unit Records or someone on their roster". If the precedent of this discussion does not apply, and if the category is judged to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, then it should be renamed to a grammatically correct title, such as Category:Wikipedians who like G-Unit Records or Category:Wikipedian fans of G-Unit Records.

• Comment: This Category is inteded for the G-Unit WikiProject.  UzEE  05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records members already exists and is populated by an unrelated userbox (Template:WikiProject:G-Unit Records/Userbox). Membership in a WikiProject and "fans of" userboxes and categories do not overlap, as one can be a fan of something without being a member of a WikiProject or having any interest in improving articles related to the topic. Incidentally, the userboxes that populate this category are listed here: two are "fans of" categories and one expresses a desire to be signed on by the record label. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Being a "fan" of something does not mean one is interested on collaborating on articles related to that topic, so it is useless to Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as appropriate. I am against delete.  UzEE  05:25, 20 February 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 - jc37 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Tintin Graphic Novels to Category:Wikipedians who read The Adventures of Tintin

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the comic book series (The Adventures of Tintin), per the convention of the Category:Wikipedians who read comic books. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename - Doesn't appear to be controversial, I'd do it myself but I presume the nominator had some doubts or he would have listed it in the speedy section in the first place, so i'll wait for further comment. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Johnl1479 18:27, 24 February 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. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protestant Christian Wikipedians to Category:Protestant Wikipedians

Speedy merge: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Speedy Merge - jc37 18:42, 22 February 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. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians to Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

Speedy merge: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 19 February 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: Mixture of Rename and Delete - Since it's been 2 weeks, with no closure, I'll go ahead and ignore the typical guidelines and close this.

Delete Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim

Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" to Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls to Category:Wikipedians who like The Golden Girls

Delete the rest. - jc37 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" to Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?
• Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim to Category:Wikipedians who like Adult Swim
• Category:Wikipedians who watch Charm School to Category:Wikipedians who like Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School
• Category:Wikipedians who watch COPS (TV series) to Category:Wikipedians who like COPS (TV series)
• Category:Wikipedians who watch Flavor of Love to Category:Wikipedians who like Flavor of Love
• Category:Wikipedians who watch Survivor to Category:Wikipedians who like Survivor
• Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls to Category:Wikipedians who like The Golden Girls
• Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television; some of these seem to be single- or few-article categories (e.g. Charm School, COPS (TV series), Flavor of Love, The Golden Girls) and, thus, should perhaps be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - While the convention "who like" certainly is no more collaborative than "who watch", in the interest of standard naming conventions these should be renamed. I support a group nom for these categories in the future to rename to "interested in", or delete and allow creation of "interested in" cats. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm starting to think that maybe we should consider some group nominations to remove "who like"; "who love", and "who enjoy" from category naming conventions, as being just too confusing. (It may also help avoid biting newbies to Wikipedian category creation.) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, none of these are helpful for encyclopedia building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Rename all per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnl1479 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, I see no good reason to keep or rename. - Epousesquecido (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - per VegaDark. Chris (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To "hopefully" help prevent a closure of "no consensus", I'd like to suggest the following:

  Delete Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim - it's a programming block of a network, and as such is a "single article category", since the "block" of programming can and does change.

  Keep or Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" and Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right as game shows. The latter, in particular has quite a few related articles.

  Keep or Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls - per the rest of the Television series cats.

  Delete the rest as reality shows of one sort or other. - jc37 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be fine with me if all the "Keep or renames" were renames (in the interest of standard naming conventions). VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also be OK with that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 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. If a Wikipedians interested in beer category wishes to be created, then by all means. Wizardman 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are members of CAMRA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; being a member of the Campaign for Real Ale does not imply either an above-average interest in or ability to improve the encyclopedia. Moreover, there seems to be only one article that is directly related to the category, so opportunities for collaboration are inherently limited.

• Delete as nominator and per ample precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Stricken per discussion below. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I do not think this category should be kept, but not for the reasons given. This category could possibly assist with collaboration on all articles on British real ales, as members of CAMRA are mostly extremely knowledgeable about such beers and often on many other types of beer. Is there Category:Wikipedians interested in beer or similar title that it could be merged into? Let me declare an interest. Although living in Australia I am a member of CAMRA and first joined over 30 years ago. --Bduke (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is Category:Wikipedians interested in breweries, but the scope is obviously different. What level of knowledge or involvement is the norm with members of CAMRA? Does it involve knowledge of sources and relevant literature? (My impression was that it was an advocacy group not unlike thousands of others. Then again, the fact that there is an annual membership fee (£20) suggests a certain level of interest on the part of members...) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an advocacy group, but I very successful one. In the 1970s it stopped the big breweries removing real ale in wooden keg beers entirely from the market to concentrate on pressurized metal keg beers. Since then the market in real ale has increased significantly with many new small breweries being started. Members of CAMRA are very knowledgeable about these breweries and real ale in general. I have not time now as I am about to go out, to look up a list of articles that CAMRA members could collaborate on, but there are plenty. Sources - there are several CAMRA mamber written books that are very expert. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying... In light of your comments, I've stricken my "delete" recommendation in favour of some type of renaming, perhaps to Category:Wikipedians interested in beer or Category:Wikipedians in the Campaign for Real Ale. Normally, the interest category would be my first preference, but I worry that it would soon be populated by various userboxes for beer-drinkers who have no interest in articles about beer(s). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Comment in response to Bduke's comments) - That's like saying that members of a U.S. democratic party advocacy group would be knowledgeable to collaborate on quite a few articles related to various U.S. democrat politicians. This sounds like a decent WikiProject in-the-make, but not a good idea for a category. It's food related, and an advocacy (Support/oppose issue) cat. Both of which... - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in beer per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support deletion as a second choice if no consensus to rename. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent, and per my comments above. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:47, 24 February 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. Wizardman 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey scale

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation (see Kinsey scale). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched to delete - given the way much of this category seems to have been populated (substitutions of an unrelated userbox) and its narrow scope. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please relist in main section. I only see one or two articles directly related to the category. Kinsey Reports being the other. More information would be welcome, however. - jc37 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted. I also noticed that a few category members (perhaps up to 50%) are in the category due to substitution of User:UBX/kinsey; the userbox and category were decoupled by me in July 2007. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per comments above. - jc37 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too narrow of a scope, only could support collaboration for a few articles. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 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 - With no prejudice against creating a cat of the suggested rename name, if enough WIkipedians are interested. - jc37 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy PhD Comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Narrow scope; any collaborative potential is limited to 1-2 articles: Piled Higher and Deeper and Jorge Cham. In addition, the userbox that populates the category does not clearly express an interest in collaboration. If there is no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Piled Higher and Deeper, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips.

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support England F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Most countries have a national football team and I think it's reasonable to assume that most people support the national team of their country of birth or residence. Thus, I would expect this type of category to be effectively redundant, in most cases, to existing nationality or location category. If there is no consensus to delete, then the category ought to be renamed to Category:Wikipedian England national football team fans, per the convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) national team fans and to match England national football team.

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, if this is the case, then perhaps all of the other Category:Wikipedians who support ..... should also then be deleted? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral comment - Click this link to see a list of all Category:Wikipedians who support ...... - jc37 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply: - Ah okay! :) --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:19, 27 February 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 - Incidentally, I think we determined in the past that we just needed two admins to endorse to speedy cases like this. (Presuming unanimity of comment, of course.) So, as the nom is an admin + me = 2... - jc37 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Pine Bush High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - see Pine Bush High School. With over 30 precedents over the course of seven months, it's more time-efficient to speedy these than to require a full 5 days of discussion. To quote VegaDark from a 2 February 2008 discussion: "With 30 discussions of past precedent, there is no way any of these will ever survive UCFD without consensus for deleting high school categories being overturned at WP:DRV first, so a UCFD is really only a formality at this point." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:36, 17 February 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 add "the" per noms. - jc37 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in history of medicine[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in history of medicine to Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of medicine

Speedy rename to add a definite article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in History of Georgia (country)[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in History of Georgia (country) to Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of Georgia (country)

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation and add a definite article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Byzantine empire[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Byzantine empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Byzantine Empire

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation (see Byzantine Empire) and add a definite article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:14, 17 February 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, as I went and upmerged everything already. Wizardman 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora Core to Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an excessively narrow subdivision; also, Fedora has had six distinct cores. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since merging a category involves deleting the category page, would you support deletion now without prejudice to the later nomination of the target category? (Only one of the categories was tagged, so unless the other is tagged and this discussion is relisted, only one can be affected by this CFD.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:25, 1 March 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 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians for the Pacific Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Political support/oppose category for users who support the creation of the Pacific Union; does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 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. Wizardman 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Seems to be orphaned? Hardly used? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify to Wikipedia:League of Old Codgers - The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that the category is nothing other than a bottom-of-the-page notice for a fairly specific in-joke. In this respect, it is similar to Category:Rouge admin (deleted recently), only it's significantly less populated or known. A userbox or project page (similar to Wikipedia:Knights of NPOV or Wikipedia:Rouge admin) would be more appropriate. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Listify/Weak Keep - See the last discussion concerning this cat. I'm personally likely going to waffle in either direction depending on the discussion to follow. - jc37 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not help the encyclopedia to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 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 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Divine Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A joke category populated by this userbox, which states: "This user is God." While the userbox can be considered humorous, heretical, or somewhere in between (depending one's views and inclinations), the category is utterly without use.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serves no purpose. Is it actually a joke??? I cannot see how it helps encyclopaedic collaboration. EJF (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category conveys no useful information. Jacob1207 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 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 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play pen-and-paper games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All-inclusive, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. A category that includes everyone who has ever played tic-tac-toe, hangman, connect the dots, or any other game involving paper and a pen or pencil cannot possibly be useful.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EJF (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 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 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per the consensus reached for Category:Eurasian Wikipedians (see here or here). Categorisation by race does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, partly because racial classifications are fairly broad and vague and partly because identifying with a certain racial group does not imply any type of ability to improve (or interest in improving) the encyclopedia. A userbox or userpage notice is adequate to convey the sentiment. Also, this category is populated by Template:User Filipinos Are Asians, which is actually a userbox for belief rather than racial affiliation; one can hold the belief that Filipinos are racially Asian without being Asian.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I might take that last one to deletion review (strikes me as head counting rather than weighing of arguments). -- Ned Scott 05:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is the argument in this or the other discussion that would justify retention? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not help in the construction of an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:43, 24 February 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: keep, without prejudice to more focused individual or small group nominations (for deletion, renaming, or merging). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by website (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Intellipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Link Everything Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to MusicBrainz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to OpenStreetMap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiWikiWeb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wookieepedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's time for these categories to go. There is numerous past precedent to delete these individually, but I think as a group categorizing Wikipedians by what other websites they "contribute to" does not help Wikipedia in any way. I contribute to plenty of other websites, but that does not mean that I have anything relevant to add to the articles on those websites or any intent on collaboration on them. Additionally, even if a collaborative intent was implied by these categories, their scope would be too narrow to sustain a category past collaboration on a single article, which renders the purpose of having a category pointless (since collaboration on single articles can better occur on such articles' talk page). VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no strong views, but it is often suggested that material should be transwikied. Would these categories help to find people who would do that? I am currently trying to clean up some articles by moving some material to another wiki. It would certainly be helpfull to know of other editors who worked on that other wiki, although it is not one with a category like these. --Bduke (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - As we are building an encyclopedia, which is, by its nature, a reference work, I think that it is quite useful, helpful, and, honestly, smart, to have a grouping of individuals who contribute to other online reference works. If we are to presume that Wikipedian categories have any value, certainly this would be one. These are individuals who, while we may or may not presume adpetness, they at least have a smattering of experience at contributing to reference works, and I would presume that accessing that knowledge base (by looking through the category grouping for someone) would be exactly the usage presumed for Wikipedian categories. - jc37 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even realize that the category was for "reference-based websites" only, so the parent category needs a rename to reflect that if kept. That being said, I still disagree that we can assume any extra ability to collaborate on Wikipedia as a result of being in these categories, and even if that were true, I think there could be much better names for such categories. For instance, let's say there was both a category for Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Alpha and a category for Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Beta. Both are Star Trek Wikis, so there would be no benefit to have both categories since the users within each would presumably have the same skills. This situation presents the fact that similar-content website categories would be duplicative of eachother if the argument to keep is that the users within would have some special skill related to the subject of the website they contribute to. Further, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that someone who simply "contributes" to another website has a better ability to contribute to wikipedia on that subject. Contribute can mean anything from being a regular contrubutor for years to simply fixing a spelling error once as an anon years ago. While it would be nice if the editors in the latter group wouldn't add themselves to the category, it is undeniable that such categorization occurs nonetheless (for those that like to add themselves to every category that applies to themselves, regardless of collaboration intent). Therefore, I still feel these should be deleted, but if kept I think a rename to resolve the issues above is in order. VegaDark (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I sincerely don't mean this as "snarky" (whatever that means) as this may appear, but... Read the page? It (I presume?) makes clear the category inclusion criteria. That said, what would your suggestions for a rename be? - jc37 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we should have to read the description to know what a category is about-the title should make it clear. In this case, if kept a better name would be Category:Wikipedians by reference-based website. As for subcategories, a better naming convention might be Category:Wikipedians who contribute to music-related reference based websites (for websites like MusicBrainz and LyricWiki) or similar. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the accuracy in naming, to a point. Sometimes the inclusion criteria can be narrow enough for a category, but yet too large for a succinct name. For example, this category is specifically for reference-based websites, but also includes some free or roughly free (IANAL) content websites. That seems difficult to quantify in a single name, but yet not so broad an inclusion criteria as to make this parent cat "not useful". (And I dunno if we need to think about subcatting the cat yet.) - jc37 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Keep as is--these are mostly or entirely relevant. They are some of them free projects, appropriate for cooperation. The specific names of the sites are distinctive for anyone who might possibly be interested DGG (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Reuse issues, both in both directions benefit from the free-content-site cats, and I see reasonable potential to include the others as well. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention, the precedent cited includes some keeps for similar reasons. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 19 February 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 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Resident Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 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: Deleted nat.utoronto 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play card games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play blackjack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play FreeCell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play go fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play hearts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play poker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play solitaire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play spades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play spit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've played almost every one of these at least once, yet I have no desire or above-average ability to collaborate on any of these articles just because I have played them. Some of them are nearly all-inclusive (who hasn't played poker or freecell?) and some of them suffer from being too narrow of a topic for collaboration (go fish, spit, uno). For those in these categories that do want to collaborate, they should create an "interested in" version of the category, since categorizing users by what game they play does not help anything. A rename could introduce miscategorization, so independet creation of interested in categories would be a better idea. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I might oppose deletion of a few of these. Some are, as the nominator notes, too specific, but not all of them. I would treat the naming convention "who play" similar to the Wikipedians by skill categories. I'd be interested in discovering how many multiple articles are category could represent. Further discussion would be welcome. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except the two collectible card games, which perhaps should be considered separately. I have, at one time or another, played almost all of these games (except the two collectible card games and UNO), yet I've no above-average knowledge of the subjects, access to or awareness of sources and literature regarding the subjects, or interest in contributing to articles related to these subjects. I'm sure that this is true of many or most others. Simply playing a card game -- especially considering how easy it is to do so on the computer -- doesn't imply any knowledge of it beyond the basic rules. I think players of the collectible card games may be more involved in the games (if nothing else, they must purchase the cards to play), and thus more knowledgeable about the subject. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play card games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These collectively would aid in improving the coverage of card games on WikiPedia.--Bedford 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Would the nominator have any issue with splitting the "copyrighted" card games into individual nominations? - jc37 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, although UNO is copyrighted and there seems to be no agument to keep that- I assume you mean the other two? (I'd still support deletion for those, however, as "who play" ≠ "interested in"). VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all the above. I was going to suggest keeping, since there are quite a few articles on these, and my comments above concerning Wikipedians by skill. (Bridge and Poker in particular have a whole library of study on the specific topics.) However, the computer point was well-taken. These being in the "public domain", there are a myriad of games, variations (Solitaire? which one?), and so on, included in all sorts of books, video game packs, etc. There just is too far a divide between those who play for entertainment, and those who "study the game". While I tend to shy away from "interested in" if at all possible, there's just no getting around the confusion that applies to these. And along with that, I'd likely support a similar deletion/recreated-renamed of any "Wikipedians who play a specific game" cat. - jc37 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play UNO[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who play UNO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Comment - Split from main nom as requested above. - jc37 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments in the main nom. If kept (since there are a few articles that could be considered "related") I would weakly support a rename to "interested in". I think the "divide" is still a bit far, but not as wide as the above. - jc37 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (as original nom) - Too narrow to facilitate collaboration, as well as the fact that "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on topics related to". VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment in the main nom and the comments directly above. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a single-article category. Horologium (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play CCGs[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who play Magic: The Gathering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wikipedians who play Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)