< December 2007 February 2008 >

January 25

Category:Wikipedians who like Rene Magritte

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Rene Magritte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per numerous past precedent, it is not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize by individual. VegaDark (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 24

Category:Wikipedians who like X

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. →AzaToth 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like 2001: A Space Odyssey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Dr. Strangelove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Airplane! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like High School Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Gone With the Wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Spaceballs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Mrs. Doubtfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Memento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Magnolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Precedent to delete this type of category at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project. As per that discussion, it does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual movies they like, as such categories would only facilitate collaboration on one or few articles (In this case, I realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey has more than one movie in the series, however there is no indication that this category is for those who like anything other than the original). Additionally, keeping such categories would allow for creation of thousands of similar categories, one for every movie out there. Further, categorizing "who likes" movies is unproductive for the encyclopedia as people who like movies by no means necessarily want to collaborate on them. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All Wikipedians who like X discussions were merged on 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The category gives no indication that the user likes anything other than the first film. Also, a more appropriate name would be Category:Wikipedians interested in High School Musical. This is also why I orignally had these in individual noms, not as a group nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • High School Musical appears as good a name for the franchise as any other. According to High School Musical (disambiguation), that name could refer to 10 works. Any reasonable rename should be fine. –Pomte 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category links to High School Musical, not the disambiguation page, so a rename to be more broad might not accurately reflect the user's intent. VegaDark (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just expanded the scope of the category in a way that does not exclude any original intent, while encapsulating them all. –Pomte 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons Movie

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. →AzaToth 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Precedent to delete this type of category at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project. As per that discussion, it does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual movies they like, as such categories would only facilitate collaboration on one or few articles. Additionally, keeping such categories would allow for creation of thousands of similar categories, one for every movie out there. Further, categorizing "who likes" movies is unproductive for the encyclopedia as people who like movies by no means necessarily want to collaborate on them. Alternatively, merging to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons would be fine as well. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 21

Category:Queer wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was moved to deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 20

Category:Sandbox

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 - consensus is clear for this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, I don't see how this could possibly be needed. -- Prove It (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brings up a good point. There are the official and unofficial sandboxen, which are essentially articles. Should we have a category sandbox to test category functionality? --Kbdank71 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not necessary to create a category page to use the category name to test category functionality. See Category:Foo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is fine for you or me, but someone who is new isn't going to know they can use that for testing. --Kbdank71 18:06, 24 January 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.

January 19

Category:Wikipedians who curse

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Delete. The only argument put forward to keep this is that the category can lighten the mood on WIkipedia. However, the consensus within the debate disagreed with that, failing to find any collaborative use for the category. I believe anyone reading the debate will concur that the consensus is fucking obvious. Hiding T 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't think of how it would be helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 17

Trout categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was much whacking and slapping with various flora and fauna of the depths. Looking through the debate and trying to discern something resembling consensus, I think the best we can all agree on is that Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping be renamed as Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Beyond that, there's no consensus to delete anything. To quote Monty Python, "Right stop this! You're getting far too silly". I'd advise leaving off nominating these for much for a while, simply because, to return to Python, "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Hiding T 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per Hiding's closing statement. I propose that these categories be renamed to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout whacking and Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking, respectively, in accordance with WP:TROUT and this discussion. :-) - ∅ (∅), 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism by all means create it as an alternative. If you want Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking create that too (here I'll even do it for you, since there is obvious demand). Violent? Get a grip!--Docg 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay mister person, now you've gone and forced me to do it. Category:Wikipedians_open_to_constructive_criticismWjhonson (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who will accept only trouts and not words, Category:Administrators not open to constructive criticism. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian autograph pages

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was No consensus. There's as many good arguments put forward to keep as there are to delete. Pomte makes a good point regarding a use for them, and since that isn't really answered, even though there are good arguments to delete the categories, there's no clear consensus on the lack of utility to the encyclopedia and the community building it, and thus no consensus to delete. Hiding T 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian autograph pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOT#SOCIAL. The old claim that such things should be tolerated as facilitating colloaboration and a positive community spirit are discredited e.g. by the fact that only a tiny minority wants them, and also by the verifiable fact that too many users included there also display a liking for fancy signatures rather than e.g. encyclopedic standards. User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Wikipedians by skill

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep as a group, without prejudice of re-nominating individual categories in the future. VegaDark (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians by profession, and more trivial and subjective at that. The only half-way plausible subcategory which should definitely be kept is Category:Wikipedian translators (subcat of Category:Wikipedia translation). The rest should either be deleted or, if not already, included in Category:Wikipedians by profession instead. [See detailed proposal above] User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Motorcycle owners

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Speedy delete db-author. - jc37 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorcycle owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Less appropriate than and [partially] redundant to Category:WikiProject Motorcycling members. User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

January 16

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Delete, unproductive WP:POINT violation. Nakon 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians[edit]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification

Per the arguments that led to the deletions of all the categories listed at that deletion debate, this category and related categories should also be deleted. Avruchtalk 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is apparently far more controversial and divisive than the category could be; there appears to be no clear consensus to delete (although the argument is weighted that way) and I have no objection to the category being renamed "Gay Wikipedians" or "LGBT Wikipedians." Avruchtalk 15:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should go in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my argument is that it was created in jest.. fun.. humor.. something much lacking around the whole "LGBT cats" discussions.. they've become so heated over the months, to downright nasty, that it was just an "lmao" suggestion by a user that Gayass Wikipedians should be created.. so I did it. ALLSTARecho 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one merry prankster to another, let me just observe to you that when you have to say "it was a joke", your joke has already hit the ground with a wet splat. Comedians understand that a joke that plays well in one room is not necessarily going to play well everywhere. In any case, I'll accept that the category was a joke, and maybe even a good joke in limited contexts. Now that you've had your little joke, let it drop. Nothing kills a joke like beating on it too long, especially if it's already dead.
Frankly, my basis for assuming good faith was exactly the scenario you give: that someone in the LGBT community had created it. As a member of that community, I got the joke and would have laughed loudly if the joke were shared in the family, so to speak. But in some ways the intent doesn't matter. Jokes are all about context. You took a joke out of the context in which it was funny and planted it in a context in which it was not funny, like telling a surfing joke in North Dakota ... so it fell to earth with a thud. Brush yourself off, comedian, like you were just warming up, and move on to other material.  :) --7Kim (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, you'll notice a Catch 22 involved in this category and its predecessors Category:Queer Wikipedians and Category:LGBT Wikipedians. For some reason *these* categories are deleted while other categories based on self-selection are allowed.
Now, the argument goes, WP:OTHERSTUFF is no reason to keep a category.
But then look at the discussion for Cat:American Wikipedians where the category will most likely be kept due to WP:HARMLESS.
There's a double standard and it's time it got ironed out. It seems as though the sexuality categories have been / are singled out while other self-selection user criteria are not. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, however, there is a specific issue surrounding the adjectival intensifying particle "-ass". I have no objection to Category:Queer Wikipedians or Category:Gay Wikipedians so long as the word "queer" or "gay" gets a coherent definition and the cat has good inclusion criteria, but I would have the same argument against Category:Queerass Wikipedians that I have against Category:Gayass Wikipedians. How many people would describe themselves as "gayass", "queerass", "lesbianass", or "transass"? The presence of that particle "-ass" renders the label offensive and pejorative. I accept that there was ironic intent behind it, but the vast majority of those consulting and editing Wikipedia are not in on the joke and don't necessarily understand the ironic intent. --7Kim (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am gay and I like ass, so that makes me gayass, no? lol ALLSTARecho 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How very relevant. - ∅ (∅), 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV much? ALLSTARecho 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV? Surely you're not claiming that LGBT people are exempt from the requirements of common sense and decency? We don't have Category:Nigger Wikipedians for black people, either, do we? And even if we did, being created by a black person would not make it any less offensive! - ∅ (∅), 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addendum to this comment, I quote the admin who closed the debate on Category:LGBT Wikipedians, as food for thought:

    The result of the debate was delete. While those who count votes may point to the numbers here, I have closed this as delete based on strength of the arguments and precedent at the cited DRV. The majority of the persons in favor of keeping this category actually help the opposite cause by 1) making claims of bias against those favoring deletion, turning this into a social issue of identification rather than one of collaboration and 2) making depreciated arguments of WP:ILIKEIT in favor of social networking. After Midnight 0001 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

    I personally do not agree with the decision to delete these categories, but facts is facts and consensus is consensus and it is important to understand and deal with the very real arguments that were made rather than relying on the comfortable illusion that those who do not give you what you want are simply biased. There is probably a way to restore the LGBT usercats, but crying bias is the best possible way to ensure that they will never be restored. --7Kim (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what "rubbed the salt in the wound" regarding all these "gay" usercats was that they were all UCfD/slaughtered during National Coming Out Week, some of those cats having been in place for 2 years with no problems but all of a sudden, during a national observance of gay pride, thrown to the wolves for devour... ALLSTAR echo 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I share the feeling, but this discussion should be continued elsewhere. Arguments from feelings have very limited utility in UCfD. --7Kim (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gayass Wikipedians Section Break[edit]
I strongly resent the many posts by Coleman around Wikipedia today that imply that I am biased, bigoted, anti-gay, homophobic or whatever else. I am simply not, and in fact I believe my personal opinions on the subject have no place here. I'm disappointed that no one has taken a moment to address the fact that Coleman has blamed the ills of gay Wikipedians on me, in any forum where he has expressed this opinion. My nomination of the Gayass Wikipedian nomination has nothing to do with what I think of people who are gay and everything to do with whether I think such a category or similar categories (whether relating to LGBT or otherwise) has a place in Wikipedia. And before you ask, no I haven't nominated other categories for deletion - I have the LGBT WikiProject page watchlisted, and happened to note the discussion there of the new category. Avruchtalk 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure all LGBT Wikipedians would happily liked to be called a gayass. Not being offensive to one person doesn't mean that another could be offended by it, and I know there are editors here who would identify was LGBT who would most certianly not like being included in that category. — Save_Us † 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But who are Wikipedia to tell those that the category is quite clearly intended for what to call themselves? It doesn't simply say "LGBT Wikipedians" on the category page. It's a little more specific than that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the category: This category contains Wikipedians who are phenomenally flaming gay, avowed homosexuals, decidedly trans, bi, or lesbian, genderfucked, intersex, or otherwise queer. That is pretty inclusive for this topic (i.e. "or otherwise queer"), and is hardly specific. What is wrong in placing themselves in Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues or looking through the 'Whatlinkshere' tool to see who is using the userbox as well? There are African-Americans who call themselves a nigga, but I'm sure not all African-Americans would really appriciate a categories exsistence if one was made for the term. "Gayass" isn't even common terminology for the most part and if it is used, it's used as a pejorative.The title of this userbox was intended as a joke more than likely, and not a very funny one as it turns out. Keeping this category is setting us up to return to the debate about other sexuality and gender related categories. In a nutshell, the point of user categories is group users interested in the same topics, which LGBT already has, and we need to use common sense about something titled "gayass". If someone want to call themselves that, I'm all fine for them to declare the same thing the category does, but the actual category itself is an absolute joke. — Save_Us † 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the Wikipedians who were affected by the previous deletion result cited as the rationale for this deletion debate would not mind giving up this category if their previous choice of user categories had not been deleted. They aren't asking for special treatment - they are asking for the same rights as any other group of Wikipedians. The name and existence of that or those user categories should not be censored or otherwise singled out. To consider the reaction against that sort of treatment a joke speaks for itself and needs no reply. Does that apply to religious groups as well? Should we tell everyone in Category:Christian Wikipedians and all the subcategories to create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity instead? The double standard applied here is obvious. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about equal treatment, it's about blatant WP:POINT violations caused by a joke. The example between Christian Wikipedians and this is hardly a fair or equal one. According to the article on it, Christianity and the term Christian have been around since the 1st century, meanwhile "Gayass" is not a term at all. The term "gayass" was coined yesterday as a term of describing someone as a avowed homosexual unless someone can prove otherwise. If your argument was "if someone created a new term that was offensive for a religious group, would you have it deleted?" (as opposed to a sexual preference), yes, I would have it deleted. I don't want it censored out nor am I singling it out, and I would say the same thing for any other category like this one. The term gayass is not a term at all, used as a joke and is potentially offensive to people who are LGBT. How you can compare the word gayass to Christian is appauling. — Save_Us † 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to chime in here -- the term "gayass" wasn't exactly coined yesterday. I've heard it before (and I'm not even gay). I'm for this being deleted, mind you, but as far as it being offensive, that's probably something the gayass people should be deciding, not others :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:40, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I was being unclear then for which I do apologize. The comparison I wish to make is between asking LGBT editors to restrict themselves to Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues and asking those in the subcategories of Category:Christian Wikipedians to restrict themselves to a category such as Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity. When the LGBT editors were singled out as they were in the deletion of the various subcategories they aren't getting equal treatment and this is what upsets me. Yes, they created this to make a point but they did so because they weren't being treated fairly and this needs to be properly adressed. Simply dismissing it as inflammatory as is being done in some arguments here is just another slap in their face. No wonder they are upset. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Equazcion, yes, I have heard the term before as well, but mostly used as a pejorative and not a means of self-identification in sexuality.
EconomicsGuy, all I can furthur say is that if they were treated unfairly, then process to restore something that they wanted or needed can be done in order to reverse the affects of it. Creating things out of spite of a decision (and making potentially inflammatory to boot) isn't the way to make their argument stronger. If they want to discuss and create a user category for LGBT users, then by all means, let them discuss that and bring up the past CFD and let them create a decent category. But creating this much drama over this kind of category, and the way it was created, is almost reason enough to delete. If they wanted to make a legitimate claim about it and create a legitimate category, I see no problem. — Save_Us † 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, except that process has been tried. I agree with the comment made on DRV that a RFC may be the proper approach to solving this. As for the two of us we'll just have to agree to disagree since our fundamental views on these things are clearly too far apart for any meaningful debate to take place. Cultural and political differences I guess. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict - Sorry)*Strong keep or Move to Queer What is the logic for keeping usercats like "Christian" or "African American" or "Muslim"? Other than objections to "ass" (and might I point out WP:Censor and that it's a usercat for those users who don't have an issue with the presence of "ass"), maybe we could stop being so puritanically uptight on other people's behalf. Gayass was not intended to be insulting, I'm a "gayass" user - it's called a sense of humor. This isn't about social networking but about inclusiveness and visibility in attempt to address systemic bias and bigotry. It has been suggested, a bit of a sop, but better than nothing, that users sign up at WP:LGBT. OK, why is this acceptable and productive, but not a cat? Probably because it would then be safely hidden away so that other users need not be troubled or offended (let's not forget a reduced risk of contaminating our younger users). The problem with this is that it can take a while for a new user to get into the backdrop of Portals and Projects, and that while is often plenty of time for a new user to feel like s/he has no voice, feel disenchanted and leave. Oh yeah, and because (it needs repeating) WP does not censor.

Let's reverse the situation - WP is a queer-friendly project (gasp!) - there are usercats for "Gay", "Lesbian", "Drag Queen", "Drag King", "Power bottom", "Users who prefer water based lubricants", "Bear" and "Felcher", as well as "Butch" and "Femme", but you are a hetero Christian. Because you have a sense of humor and admire the project's goals, you suggest a Christian usercat to help foster a sense of community that you can identify with in order to learn from and collaborate with other like minded editors. But the very community you want to a be part of responds by saying "Oh, Christianity, that cannibalistic, necrophiliac cult?" or "How inflammatory." or "You just want to get a date." or "Why no, you can't self-identify because of privacy issues" WTF? It's called self-identification.

This is not a false category, not a joke, not a not-based category ;P, not obscure, not frivolous, not a name that includes an insult to others (OK, points for not taking cheap shot here), not of purely local interest, not associated with illegal activities. But we do have usercats relating to location, religion, hardware - because whether or not you use a Dell is so desperately relevant to collaboration, "BASC Divers" - a little underwater editing anyone?, "Wikipedians interested in alchemy" - helloooo, and last but not least, "Wikipedians open to trout slapping". I rest my case. Phyesalis (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!vote: Is this category a blatant violation of WP:POINT? Yes, obviously. However, take a moment to read WP:POINT -- it is meant to prevent disruption. I see this category as a fraction as disruptive as the deletion of the previous sexuality identification categories. It seems to me that not having a category for LGBTQ/etc Wikipedians to identify when so many other (many very arbitrary) groups do hurts the community of Wikipedia far more than having one would. While the cries of bias may be unjustified, they are understandable to me, especially given the fact that it is a sad fact of our culture that discrimination against people who identify themselves as or are judged by others to be LGBTQ is largely condoned in modern society. In light of all the other categories brought up above, the argument that user cats should serve the interests of collaboration holds, in my opinion, absolutely no weight. Indeed, having categories where people may self-identify in a group typically considered a "minority" may well serve a very useful purpose per WP:CSB. Should we have a "Category:Gayass Wikipedians"? Of course not, it is clearly disruptive. But should we have a "Category:LGBTQ Wikipedians"? I can't think of a single reason why not. - Revolving Bugbear 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you're wrong about that technicality. Gayass Wikipedians isn't remotely close to Gay Wikipedians except in partial name. Check the content of both of them. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a combination category for all the LBGT categories that were deleted and endorsed at DRV, and can be speedied as substantial recreation as such IMO. I think if "X Wikipedians" and "Y Wikipedians" are individually deleted, that makes "X and Y Wikipedians" speedy deletable. To have to go through an entire new nom would be gaming the system (which, coincidentally, the creation of this category successfully did). VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you believed it was a recreation of Category:Gay Wikipedians. How can it then be a combination of all the deleted categories at the same time? That is logically incoherent. Also, there is no speedy criteria that says that putting something together in a larger context makes it speedy deletable. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it logically incoherent to believe that it is a recreation of the content of several categories? The speedy criteria says " A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." That reasoning fits with this category. The reasons the LBGT categories were deleted was because the need to categorize people by sexual preference was deemed unnecessary. The creation of this category does not address the reasons for why those categories were deleted. I think most admins would agree, and I have already talked to one who agreed it is speedyable. I would have had no hesitation to speedy delete this as such if I had realized this earlier, but as I said at this point in the debate that could be counterproductive. I wouldn't fault someone who did, however, and I'd imagine such a deletion would be endorsed at DRV. VegaDark (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment here again but the fact that you are trying to pull rank on me in a content issue (or generally for that matter) makes it worth to comment one last time. You know, the sad fact here is that this would never have been an issue if these categories hadn't been singled out and deleted. And what is that I see above? An admin agreeing with me as well? And he isn't the only one. There are over 1000 active admins - whether one or even a small group agrees with you means nothing at all. Fact is you still haven't realized why this is an issue - and the answer to that one isn't in letter by letter reading of a speedy criteria. It actually requires that you take the time to understand those affected by this. The lack of will and quite possibly ability to do so by several people in this debate says more than I really wanted to know about my fellow Wikipedians. I'm done with this debate now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that you are making arguments that would be better severed on deletion review, not here. You are essentially arguing WP:IAR be implemented so you can have your category back. I personally don't think I even participated in the original debate resulting in the deletion of the LBGT categories, but I can see both the pros and cons of keeping such categories. Hence, I think if it is to be restored (which I am fine with if consensus wishes such) it should be through the proper channels (DRV) and not here. The issue as to "why" this is an issue should be discussed there. VegaDark (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRV, in my experience, will only look very narrowly at the actual process of a previous deletion. It will not examine whether the deletion was actually right or wrong, just if it was done according to process. One of the LGBT usercats has been llisted at DRV, and the very first comment was on the lines of "this isn't the right place to discuss this". Wikipedia's sprawling bureaucracy, unworkable requirement for "consensus" (which is never defined) for every single change, and the ability of a very few editors to prevent change because of this, are stultifying. DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way something is treated on DRV can go two ways - Complaining about the deletion process (as the most recent nomination does) or determining if consensus has changed. I think there would be a much higher success of overturning by saying "Deletion of these categories followed process and consensus at the time. But, recently, it appears as if consensus may have changed about these types of categories. I am bringing this here to determine if it has in fact changed, in which case we can bring these categories back" (followed by reasons to bring them back). Deletion review is the proper place to discuss the bringing back of something as well as the deletion process, so such a discussion there would be acceptable. I think that would get a much more positive response than "The DRV was closed improperly! Overturn!". VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is Category:Scientologist Wikipedians and let's not forget Category:Intelligent Design Wikipedians. The point is for something to be abused someone must be abusing it. Are you now saying that they are asking for it? EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about vandalism. I think many would find being called "gayass" more insulting than being called a scientologist. Also, I know many people who identify themselves as homosexual being insulted with this "humorous" category. It's simply inflammatory and not funny. — DarkFalls talk 07:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they don't want to be known as a Gayass Wikipedian, then what should they not do? They should not put the userbox or category on their userpage. Problem solved. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think thats the point, "This category contains Wikipedians who are phenomenally flaming gay, avowed homosexuals, decidedly trans, bi, or lesbian, genderfucked, intersex, or otherwise queer" that covers a lot of people who are LGBT who would not liked to be called a pejorative like gayass. — Save_Us † 11:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Now, it explicitly states that those who choose to include themselves in the category "proudly proclaim that they are Gayass Wikipedians". Photouploaded (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, yes, yes. Next? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Gayass Wikipedians Section Break[edit]

And just one more reason why this cat should stay. From the recently closed Category:American Wikipedians discussion: no consensus , default to keep. Neither side had particularly strong arguments, so "mostly harmless" won out in a sense. I don't see American Wikipedians any more useful than this one so if nothing else, Gayass Wikipedians is mostly harmless and should remain. Precendent set. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me of another category that contains a explict pejorative like gayass, please. — Save_Us † 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it doesn't express contempt or disapproval and is not on the same level as the racial slurs that have been written here. It does seem to be controversial however and I'm sure that it will be deleted just as Category:LGBT Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, Category:Transsexual Wikipedians , and Category:Lesbian Wikipedians were, for reasons that had nothing to do with them being "explicit pejoratives." Altairisfartalk 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians in x prefecture

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Upmerge all to Category:Wikipedians in Japan. Every respondent since the debate was relisted has concurred. Previous respondents were invited to comment, and by their silence one can only assume they also concur or have no opinion, since they have edited Wikipedia since being informed. Hiding T 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedians in x prefecture for the category list. Note that it's just that section, the other sections are part of the in/of/from nomination directly below.
Should it be Wikipedians in the x prefecture? - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created these categories so I'll answer: No, it shouldn't be in the x prefecture. There's no logical reason behind it, but the fact is that English speakers living in Japan always say (for example) "I live in x prefecture", not "I live in the x prefecture", so this same wording should apply to the category names. Sorry if there's any confusion. Manmaru (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'd like to see more discussion of the proposed upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Japan and whether we can generate a consensus on that point. Hiding T 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 15

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was keep although I don't particularly see the benefit of having both the WP space page and a category. Perhaps an MfD or something along those lines is in order in the future to discuss merging the two. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maybe I lack the fantasy, but I don't see the point. Under what circumstances might this category ever be a useful instrument to coordinate collaboration? Further, it was created pointing to WP:EMDE for further explanation. That page has a list signed by many more users than have added themselves to the category. User:Dorftrottel 16:48, January 15, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Delete. Hiding T 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category serves no collaborative purpose and does not (by name, at least) imply interest in collaborative efforts to improve our coverage of related topics. User:Dorftrottel 16:36, January 15, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Wikipedian cancer survivors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer, resulting in delete. If Consensus has changed, this should be taken to deletion review to determine that. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian cancer survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The category has only one member, User:Ted-m, whom I will notify momentarily of this discussion. As it doesn't imply any interest in collaborative efforts, I would argue deletion rather than renaming it and making it a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:WikiCredit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete - nothing to move other than the text "WikiCredit pages" which can easily be recreated in the userspace without a move if the author so wishes. VegaDark (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiCredit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created and populated by a single user, User:GoldenPhoenix, whom I will notify momentarily of this discussion. Not to hurt anyone's feelings, but this seems like patent nonsense to me. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.


Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Delete All except Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes and Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies Nakon 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all its subcategories.

In my humble opinion, none of these serve any collaborative purpose. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

The subcategories that are also included are;

All subcategories tagged for deletion and listed above. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes - Strong keep - Is a term outside Wikipedia, and can be referenced as such. In addition, its inclusion criteria is clear, and I can see editors using this cat to contact someone for help.
  • Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies - Keep - version of WikiGnome which deals with the aesthetic "look" of articles and such. Again, the inclusion criteria is clear, and I can see editors using this cat to contact someone for help.
  • Category:Wikipedian WikiElves - Merge to Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians - synonymous with metapedian, per Wikipedia:WikiElf. See also: Association of Metapedianist Wikipedians.
  • Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons - Delete - While the related essay may be interesting (I didn't find it humourous, despite its tag), and I would "vote" to keep it, it's quite clearly intended to be condescending, in an "almost" tongue-in-cheek sort of way. A category of self-described "better-than-thou" editors is probably not a good idea.
  • Category:Wikipedian WikiOgres - Delete - semi-inactive Wikipedians? The Wikipedians by activity cats have been previously deleted.
  • Category:Wikipedian WikiZenMasters - Strong delete - intended as a duplicate of WikiFairy, because some users might not wish to be called fairies? (Then don't use the cat...)
  • (Note also that other such Wikipedian pages have been created, such as WikiSloth and WikiGremlin. If Wikipedian categories are created for such, then unless the inclusion criteria is strong, and shows how the cat can be used to contact Wikipedians for specific help, then they should probably be deleted as well.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

January 13

Category:Wikipedians who like the Wolf

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Speedy delete per user request. I actually took the trouble to ask the creator what he intended and he concurs with most respondents here. Hiding T 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the Wolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Category:Wikipedians who like Indiana Jones

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: Renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in Indiana Jones. SkierRMH (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Indiana Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Wikipedians that loves Paris Hilton

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete as offensive to Nicole Ritchie. krimpet✽ 06:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that loves Paris Hilton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual as per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual. Additionally it uses improper grammar. VegaDark (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


January 11

Category:Wikipedia users with the ability to rollback

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Speedy deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G7. Acalamari 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia users with the ability to rollback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. This category isn't useful to the project. Rollback is, in of itself, nothing more than a quicker way of doing something anyone else can do. There's no particular reason any other Wikipedian needs to find another with rollback, save factionalism. Justin chat 03:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User ar-lb

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Rename to Category:User apc along with sub-cat Category:User ar-lb-N being renamed to Category:User apc-N. Although this was not tagged, I'm going to invoke WP:IAR. Hiding T 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User ar-lb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:User apc, to match ISO 639-3 code for Lebanese Arabic. -- Prove It (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:Cuyler91093/False secret page

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete as empty for at least 4 days,. If it gets recreated and populated bring it back here. VegaDark (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuyler91093/False secret page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, there aren't any secret pages, and we don't need to keep track of who may or may not have found them. -- Prove It (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 9

Category:Wikipedians who like 30 Rock

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was No consensus. The debate hinges on the usefulness to the community and its stated goals of this category. Whilst a case is made for deletion, there is also a case that the many similar categories rebuts the point, and that a wider consensus would be needed on the utility of all such categories. Either they all are of use or none are is the point made in rebuttal. I have no idea what per myspace means. Hiding T 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like 30 Rock

Liking a particular show isn't useful to the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping‎

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Keep. The debate below indicates that most respondents believe humour can aid community collaboration. Whilst there is a consensus that the category could be better named, there is no consensus within the debate on a better name. I suggest a relisting to determine a better name is sought by interested participants. However, there is a good point made about the origins of the category which all may care to bear in mind for the future. Hiding T 10:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping‎

See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/December_2007#Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_trout_slapping and no real reason why this is useful to the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by interest

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Speedy close - WP:POINT nomination. Clearly shown in the link below. - jc37 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by interest

See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Queer Wikipedians Hyacinth (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:American Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Neither side had particularly strong arguments, so "mostly harmless" won out in a sense. Wizardman 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Wikipedians
I was reading the multiple discussions about the deletion of some other categories which people self-select to include themselves in but which were otherwise harmless, and note that this one also fails the requirement for a clear collaborative use. It clearly has a large number of members but doesn't seem to actually promote any useful activity thereby, hence this nomination. --AlisonW (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 7

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Hiding T 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series to Category:Wikipedian fans of the Richard Sharpe series
Speedy rename: A shorter formulation that matches the more general "Wikipedian fans" convention. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Redwall Series

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Hiding T 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Redwall Series to Category:Wikipedian fans of the Redwall series
Speedy rename: To fix capitalisation; a shorter formulation that matches the more general "Wikipedian fans" convention. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 5

Category:Robot Wars fans

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was after cutting through all the waffle, the consensus in the debate is to rename to Category:Wikipedian Robot Wars fans. Hiding T 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Robot Wars fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Robot Wars
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that it's a user category, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no real preference for either format, so that would be fine also. (I should note, however, that the WWE category is located at Category:Wikipedians who like WWE. The "Wikipedian X fans" categories seem to be used primarily for sports teams and events.) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given it more thought. (And this mostly due to the fact that chess is considered a "Sport" in some places.) I think we should use the "fans" convention for competitive reality shows, such as robot wars or the various versions of american idol, etc. If you can think of reasons to not, I still may topple the other way, but at the moment, this seems to make the most sense to me. - jc37 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a fan of lots of shows, but that doesn't imply I want to collaborate on articles relating to those shows. While the "who like" convention is certainly no better in this regard, I don't see how it is any worse than the "fans" version of the category. IMO these should all be renamed to "interested in" in a group nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since most of these are populated by userboxes that do not express an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject, I feel we ought to avoid a straightforward rename. As you said, being a fan of a show doesn't necessarily imply a desire to collaborate on articles relating to the show. As for choosing a particular convention for this category, I have only a miniscule preference for "Wikipedians who like...", since the "Wikipedian XXXX fans" convention is already used for user categories for sports teams. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, if the category no longer applies to the user, they will remove themselves from it, so I usually don't mind a rename such as expressed above if it is substantially similar from the original category name. Also, in my experience, getting a rename consensus can be a lot easier than getting a delete consensus on UCFD, so I usually prefer that option. VegaDark (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that's true in theory, it assumes that: (1) the user is active, (2) the user notices any changes to the list of categories at the bottom of their userpage. With regard to the first assumption, a few samples I've previously looked at suggest that generally between one-fourth and one-half of users in a category have not edited in six weeks or more. With regard to the second, the user is likely to notice any hard edits, but changing categorisation via a transcluded userbox is much easier to miss. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC) - as noted, too much waffling - please pick one of the other. --After Midnight 0001 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either your or BF's suggested name is fine with me for now. The main problem with this category is that it shows no indication it is a user category, once we fix that the main issue with this cat is gone. VegaDark (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


PGP categories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was Merge. The consensus is that the two categories be merged somewhere. The consensus also appears to be that Category:Wikipedians who use PGP is the best suggestion everyone can agree on that has arisen in the two discussions so far, so I think it's best if that merge is implented, and then if people can agree on a better name they are always welcome to return here. Hiding T 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian using a PGP Key
Category:Wikipedians who use PGP

I think there was mostly consensus for merging the two categories, the concern is to what the target should be. Category:Wikipedians who use a PGP key seemed to be the "most stable". (Preferring "who use", over "using".) The only further concerns were whether to add the word "encryption", and whether to substitute "openPGP" for "PGP". So giving them numbers:

Take your pick or suggest something additional, your choice : ) - jc37 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • User categories don't exist to serve the editors they contain; they exist to serve the needs of editors for whom a grouping of users on a certain characteristic is useful. I am not a Wikipedian in Egypt, but I can use the category to e.g. see if an editor could take a free image of a building in Cairo. The previous discussion closed as "no consensus" in large part due to the fact that numerous options continued to be presented over time, thus producing a situation with everyone endorsing a different option. That's less likely to be an issue this time, given the context of the prior discussion and jc37's summary nomination statement. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User categories serve both those who are in them and those who are not. To assume they are of no utility whatever to those who are in them, and that their opinions ought to be completely disregarded misses the mark, at best. I see absolutely no reason for a relist now in any case. ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't assume that user categories are of no utility to category members as there may well be category members "for whom a grouping of users on a certain characteristic is useful", nor did I suggest that we should disregard the opinion of any editor. I only stated that we should emphasise utility (which applies to more than just category members) rather than mere membership (which applies only to category members). – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I know that there is consensus to merge these 2 together, but unless we can get some agreement in the next 5 days on the name for the merge target, this will be another no consensus (which I think that nobody wants). --After Midnight 0001 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're suggesting - Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who use PGP, fine with me. I think xaosflux clarified it well enough, though I'll still waffle on a final name based on more and more discussion (read that as essentially: I don't care in this case, as long as whatever is chosen is shown to be accurate and precise). - jc37 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me as well, for now. In the future we can debate if a more precise name is needed, but the key issue here is that there are two categories that are meant to include the same people, so once these are merged the majority of the issue is solved. VegaDark (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 3

Wikipedians by location

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Strong arguments are made for renaming and for keeping with the status quo. For now, at least, the sides are nearly evenly split, making consensus next to impossible. Bring up for review in three months to see if it has changed. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by location for the category list.
This has been discussed several times in individual nominations, always with the suggestion that there should probably be a group nomination towards this result.
As I did research for this, I find that this is not a new discussion by any means. If you look over Wikipedia talk:User categorisation, this was an ongoing discussion. (And I'm not sure I see a consensus even then.)
One person notes the following list, which I think is as good as any to list the options:
  1. "Adjective foo"
  2. "Foo of bar"
  3. "Foo in bar"
  4. "Foo from bar"
  5. "Foo interested in or involved with, etc. bar"
After many (several years of) discussions, it seems clear that #1 and #5 just aren't precise enough for the wanted usage, which is dual: a sense of community, and usefulness in collaboration. It is the latter possibilities for collaboration/contribution which has saved these categories from summary deletion as other similar ones have been. (See this CFD discussion for an interesting example.)
So we're left to choose between of, in, and from.
We may disregard the quantity of examples of each (and there are still examples of each), since the changing from one to another has been considered a "speedy" change, and there have been many such changes, and Template:Usercat automatically uses the "in" version as a default (which should be simple enough to modify).
of - I don't think that this works. Unless you are King James I of England, or Mayor of New York City, or some other such person identified in some way with the location, it would seem that "of" isn't the proper preposition.
in - I don't think this is good either. It's too subjective. Does "in" mean that I'm now standing in that location? Does it mean from (note the word) where I edit Wikipedia? (The two could be different.) Both? I'll make further comment about this below.
from - I think that this is probably the best of the choices. Since "we are all Wikipedians here"; and the "here" is Wikipedia, then grammatically, anywhere else is where the Wikipedian is "from". Compare it to being at a convention of some kind. One may leave a personal or business card (for navigational purposes, of course : ) - which may be grouped by others from the same region/area.
"from" also has the added benefit of dealing with several confusions, such as the "Carribean question" that was discussed recently (and I note was also mentioned at least as far back as 2005 on Wikipedia talk:User categorisation. (By the way, though that page is historical, it's worth reading if you'd like to get a sense of the history of the location cats, and Wikipedian cats over all, for that matter.)
Note that there are other categories "under the by location tree", such as Category:Wikipedians who listen to KROQ (which has been removed). But I feel that the rest either involve miscategorisation , or should have separate nominations. AFAIK this nom includes all the in/of/from (and slight variations) categories.
Also, I am more than happy to split off any individual category which someone may feel deserves its own nomination (such as to further modify the name, or even for deletion, or whatever), as long as it's understood that the results of this nom should still apply. (In that vein I am splitting off the prefecture categories, above.) - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Support "Wikipedians in or from X". I understand the idea, but I do cringe at this suggestion. It weakens the usage of "from" in how it's contextually meant/defined. (And for "unnecessary" length.) But if consensus forms behind this phrasing, I won't oppose. - jc37 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That logic could be used to argue against renaming any given category under the claim that such a rename would introduce "bias". Frankly that logic doesn't work at all when it comes to categories, as having multiple categories that mean the same thing would acutally inhibit collaboration by making it harder to find a single category for users to collaborate with, rather users would have to search multiple categories for such people. It is clear that whatever bias you claim is introduced (which I am not convinced of in the first place) is outweighed by uniform naming conventions to make collaboration easier. VegaDark (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
  • What if we dropped any prepositions all together, "Wikipedians:Location" and/or reversed the order "Location Wikipedians". If those don't work, it seems (from my cursory look over my parent location categories) that "Wikipedians in ______" predominates, but there are user box choices that allow one to specify "in" or "from" or whatever. R. Baley (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 2[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

January 1

Category:Wikipedians with M.Phil degrees

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. After Midnight 0001 03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with M.Phil degrees to Category:Wikipedians with MPhil degrees
Speedy merge: Redundant categories; the latter title matches the convention of Category:Wikipedians by degree. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are fairly widely used by both US and UK institutions. As for spelling out the degree name, I'm not certain why it wasn't done at the start, though length was likely a consideration. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: seems not speedy, do you want to move this to the dated section for further discussion, or remove and relist with a new proposal? --After Midnight 0001 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a move to a dated section would be better, since it would permit continued discussion of the merits of different naming conventions. To which dated section should it be moved: December 28 (date of listing) or December 31? – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - I forgot to look back here. I would move it to the current day, since I think that most users don't look in the speedy section and we can give it 5 full days from when you move it. --After Midnight 0001 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian hitchhikers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Speedy Delete - db-author. - jc37 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian hitchhikers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does not facilitate collaboration. Only one article relating to hitchhiking, so a category is not needed for those interested in collaborating on hitchiking articles. Aditionally, just because someone is a hitchhiker does not mean that they would want to collaborate on hitchiking articles even if there was sufficient articles for such a category to facilitate collaboration on. No encyclopedic purpose to seek out users in this category. VegaDark (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Vimy Ridge

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Vimy Ridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The scope is too narrow to justify a category. Not only does the userbox (User:MelicansMatkin/userbox/Vimyrededication) express a past affiliation, but the category is intended for a single location only. (During the course of an average week, I travel to, through, or near more than 100 locations, buildings, and structures that have Wikipedia articles.) Moreover, any collaborative potential is limited to just one article (Canadian National Vimy Memorial) and so could just as easily take place on the article's talk page. Are we to have user categories for every building, structure, and minor location in the world? (See related discussions at WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians who travel)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
More