< June 2007 August 2007 >

July 31

Category:Wikipedians with social anxiety

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 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A previous discussion for this category, initiated on July 2, was closed as a technical "no consensus".

This category is for Wikipedians with social anxiety, an extremely common mental condition. Social anxiety is an experience of discomfort, essentially, in one or more particular social situations, or in social situations generally. Almost everyone has social anxiety. It comes in many forms (worrying about making a good impression at a job interview, being afraid of public speaking, being uncomfortable undressing in the presence of others), but it essentially involves conscious or subconscious apprehension at being judged by others.

Thus, this all-inclusive category implies "neither an expertise in the subject area" nor a "propensity for editing" articles related to social anxiety (quoted from the previous nomination). Please note that "social anxiety" is not the same as "social anxiety disorder", which is an actual psychiatric diagnosis. The merits of the category for editors with the disorder (Category:Wikipedians with Social Anxiety Disorder) is, I think, best discussed separately.

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.

July 30

Category:Wikipedians by fraternity and sorority and all subcats

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 04:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not MySpace, and listing a Greek affiliation does nothing to foster contribution. ^demon[omg plz] 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:

Category:Wikipedians in Alpha Epsilon Pi, Category:Wikipedians in Alpha Phi Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Delta Sigma Phi, Category:Wikipedians in Delta Tau Delta, Category:Wikipedians in Kappa Alpha Psi, Category:Wikipedians in Kappa Kappa Psi, Category:Wikipedians in Sigma Chi, Category:Wikipedians in Pi Kappa Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Alpha Phi Omega, Category:Wikipedians in Delta Upsilon, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Kappa Theta, Category:Wikipedians in the Federalist Society, Category:Wikipedians in Alpha Kappa Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Sigma, Category:Wikipedians in Kappa Sigma, Category:Mu Alpha Theta Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians in Omega Psi Phi, Category:Pi Beta Phi Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians in Iota Phi Theta, Category:Wikipedians in Delta Sigma Theta, Category:Wikipedians in Sigma Gamma Rho, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Beta Sigma, Category:Wikipedians in Zeta Phi Beta, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Iota Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Lambda Chi Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Mu Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Kappa Sigma, Category:Wikipedians in Pi Kappa Phi, Category:Wikipedians in Sigma Alpha Mu, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Mu, Category:Wikipedians in Beta Sigma Psi, Category:Wikipedians in Sigma Pi,

Note, all subcats will be tagged soon, have left word with AMbot. ^demon[omg plz] 23:35, 30 July 2007 (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.

July 29

Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats

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 all. After Midnight 0001 01:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Listing to a particular band does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about a specific artist to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:
  1. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queen
  2. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Gwen Stefani
  3. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nirvana
  4. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Dead Kennedys
  5. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Metallica
  6. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Black Sabbath
  7. Category:Wikipedians who listen to ZZ Top
  8. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Foo Fighters
  9. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Frank Zappa
  10. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Miles Davis
  11. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Clash
  12. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Dream Theater
  13. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Deep Purple
  14. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Death
  15. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Bad Religion
  16. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Offspring
  17. Category:Wikipedians who listen to MxPx
  18. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Norah Jones
  19. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Alice in Chains
  20. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush
  21. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Van Halen
  22. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Bon Jovi
  23. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rise Against
  24. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sublime
  25. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jethro Tull
  26. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Green Day
  27. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Red Hot Chili Peppers
  28. Category:Wikipedians who listen to My Chemical Romance
  29. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Social Distortion
  30. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Stone Temple Pilots
  31. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Tool
  32. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Collective Soul
  33. Category:Wikipedians who listen to U2
  34. Category:Wikipedians who listen to They Might Be Giants
  35. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Elton John
  36. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Avril Lavigne
  37. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Pearl Jam
  38. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sleater-Kinney
  39. Category:Wikipedians who listen to INXS
  40. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Faith No More
  41. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Slayer
  42. Category:Wikipedians who listen to At the Gates
  43. Category:Wikipedians who listen to In Flames
  44. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Anthrax
  45. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Frank Sinatra
  46. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Opeth
  47. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Iron Maiden
  48. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The KLF
  49. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Public Enemy
  50. Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Pixies
  51. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rainbow
  52. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Evanescence
  53. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Pink Floyd
  54. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Aly & AJ
  55. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rihanna
  56. Category:Wikipedians who listen to JoJo
  57. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Pussycat Dolls
  58. Category:Wikipedians who listen to HIM
  59. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Keane
  60. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jimi Hendrix
  61. Category:Wikipedians who listen to John Denver
  62. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Styx
  63. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Tragically Hip
  64. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Grateful Dead
  65. Category:Wikipedians who listen to AC/DC
  66. Category:Wikipedians who listen to David Bowie
  67. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Bruce Springsteen
  68. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Autour de Lucie
  69. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Altan
  70. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Solas
  71. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Shooglenifty
  72. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Natalie MacMaster
  73. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Cherish the Ladies
  74. Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Battlefield Band
  75. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Johnny Cash
  76. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Smashing Pumpkins
  77. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Interpol
  78. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Morbid Angel
  1. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Lacuna Coil
  2. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Toyah
  3. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Velvet Underground
  4. Category:Wikipedians who listen to King Crimson
  5. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Motörhead
  6. Category:Wikipedians who listen to John Lennon
  7. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Beatles
  8. Category:Wikipedians who listen to ABBA
  9. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Anton Bruckner
  10. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Richard Wagner
  11. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mariah Carey
  12. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Wolfmother
  13. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Bob Dylan
  14. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Electric Light Orchestra
  15. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rancid
  16. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Pennywise
  17. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Death By Stereo
  18. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Liquid Tension Experiment
  19. Category:Wikipedians who listen to John Petrucci
  20. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Toto
  21. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jesper Kyd
  22. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Orbital
  23. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Destiny's Child
  24. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Arctic Monkeys
  25. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Beck
  26. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Hall & Oates
  27. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Dave Matthews Band
  28. Category:Wikipedians who listen to John Mayer
  29. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Rolling Stones
  30. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Enya
  31. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jon B.
  32. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Incubus
  33. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Authority Zero
  34. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Tina Turner
  35. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Duran Duran
  36. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Swing Out Sister
  37. Category:Wikipedians who listen to PFM
  38. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Saint Vitus
  39. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Voivod
  40. Category:Wikipedians who listen to King's X
  41. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Thin Lizzy
  42. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Danny Elfman
  43. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Flaming Lips
  44. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Led Zeppelin
  45. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Minor Threat
  46. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Black Flag
  47. Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Talking Heads
  48. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Neutral Milk Hotel
  49. Category:Wikipedians who listen to OK Go
  50. Category:Wikipedians who listen to George Jones
  51. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Merle Haggard
  52. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Hilary Duff
  53. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jordan Rudess
  54. Category:Wikipedians who listen to White Heart
  55. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Petra
  56. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Who
  57. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Genesis (band)
  58. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Misfits
  59. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Daft Punk
  60. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Korn
  61. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Kyuss
  62. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queens of the Stone Age
  63. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Vandals
  64. Category:Wikipedians who listen to NOFX
  65. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Avenged Sevenfold
  66. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Atreyu
  67. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Band
  68. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Steve Miller
  69. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Monster Magnet
  70. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Soundgarden
  71. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Suicidal Tendencies
  72. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Blue Öyster Cult
  73. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Kansas
  74. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Infectious Grooves
  75. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nickelback
  76. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Yes
  77. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Dr. Dre
  78. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Killers
  79. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sandi Thom
  1. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Scorpions
  2. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Accept
  3. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sepultura
  4. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Cannibal Corpse
  5. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Skid Row
  6. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Ministry
  7. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Dido
  8. Category:Wikipedians who like Manowar
  9. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Thievery Corporation
  10. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Eva Avila
  11. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Ozzy Osbourne
  12. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Yngwie J. Malmsteen
  13. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Joe Satriani
  14. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Steve Vai
  15. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Savage Garden
  16. Category:Wikipedians who like Bee Gees
  17. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Muse
  18. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Ramones
  19. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jane's Addiction
  20. Category:Wikipedians who listen to David Gray
  21. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Tupac Shakur
  22. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Notorious B.I.G.
  23. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Cult of Luna
  24. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Carlos Santana
  25. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Good Charlotte
  26. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Simple Plan
  27. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mr. Bungle
  28. Category:Wikipedians who listen to A Perfect Circle
  29. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Linkin Park
  30. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Relient K
  31. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Fall Out Boy
  32. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Aerosmith
  33. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Judas Priest
  34. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Megadeth
  35. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Queensrÿche
  36. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Beth Orton
  37. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Doors
  38. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Michael Jackson
  39. Category:Wikipedians who listen to blink-182
  40. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Depeche Mode
  41. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Jerky Boys
  42. Category:Wikipedians who listen to TLC
  43. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Panic! at the Disco
  44. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mat Kearney
  45. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Plain White T's
  46. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Maroon 5
  47. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Eminem
  48. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The All-American Rejects
  49. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Red Hot Chili Peppers
  50. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sum 41
  51. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Justin Timberlake
  52. Category:Wikipedians who listen to ABC
  53. Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Eagles
  54. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Lynyrd Skynyrd
  55. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Beach Boys
  56. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Ronnie James Dio
  57. Category:Wikipedians who listen to "Weird Al" Yankovic
  58. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Limp Bizkit
  59. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Glad
  60. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Yeah Yeah Yeahs
  61. Category:Wikipedians who listen to LeToya
  62. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Placebo
  63. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Darren Hayes
  64. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike Oldfield
  65. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Tarkan
  66. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Powderfinger
  67. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Kelly Clarkson
  68. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nickel Creek
  69. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Waifs
  70. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Wilco
  71. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Split Enz
  72. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Helmet
  73. Category:Wikipedians who listen to 311
  74. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Beastie Boys
  75. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Journey
  76. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Porcupine Tree
  77. Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Cardigans
  78. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sarah Brightman
  79. Category:Wikipedians who listen to Marilyn Manson
Note: Subcats will be tagged within next 24 hours, I have put a request in with AMbot here. ^demon[omg plz] 21:38, 29 July 2007 (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 use Something Awful

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 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely using a website (in this case, an internet forum) does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject itself or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category.

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 with usernames with lowercase initial letters

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 both. After Midnight 0001 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes the parent category: Category:Wikipedians with usernames with unsupported titles

This category serves no purpose. It is populated by transclusions of ((lowercase-user)), which displays the following message on userpages: This user would prefer the username lowercase-user. The initial letter is capitalized because of technical limitations. I can think of no valid reason that someone might purposely browse through the category looking for editors with usernames that start with a lowercase letter (i.e., no reason that the category should exist).

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 in Human Resources

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Human Resources to Category:Wikipedian human resources workers
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by profession. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:17, 29 July 2007 (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 access to sources and references

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by access to sources and references to Category:Wikipedians by access to sources
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are similar in meaning (though they are not entirely interchangeable) and "sources" is the broader of the two. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:04, 29 July 2007 (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 with DVM degree

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians with DVM degree to Category:Wikipedians with DVM degrees
Nominator's rationale: "Degree" should be in plural form. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:56, 29 July 2007 (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 degree/BDes

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User degree/BDes to Category:Wikipedians with BDes degrees
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by degree. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:53, 29 July 2007 (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 degree class

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 all. After Midnight 0001 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes the 4 subcategories: Category:Wikipedians with First class honours degrees, Category:Wikipedians with Lower second class honours degrees, Category:Wikipedians with Third class honours degrees, Category:Wikipedians with Upper second class honours degrees

These categories offer little or no collaborative merit. A category for editors with law degrees, for instance, is useful because it provides a listing of users with a specialisation in a specific subject. It can be assumed that such specialisation is accompanied by an interest in the subject or knowledge of/access to sources relevant to the subject. The categories in this nomination merely group users based on their honours classification and says nothing about whether they have a subject-specific interest or expertise. I can think of no encyclopedic reason to retain them.

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 use Adium

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 00:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I previously nominated this category with Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger and its 9 other subcats. Unfortunately, I missed tagging this one and so it was excluded from the closing decision.

Wikipedia is not a social networking site and this category present no collaborative potential. Using a given IM service does not imply an above-average desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content to articles related to instant messengers. The idea that the categories is useful by facilitating communication between users is a flawed one. First, we have talk pages for that and communication between editors should, in most cases, be available for others to review. Second, communication via instant messenger can still be facilitated by use of a userbox on userpages. I can think of no reason (except social networking) for someone to actually browse through the category.

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.

July 28

Category:Wikipedians who use US Customary measurements

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 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents no collaborative merit. For one thing, this category essentially includes any Wikipedian living in the United States. Given this broadness, the naming of the category, and the text of the userbox, I do not believe there is any correlation between membership in this category and interest in the subject of US Customary units. In addition, units of measurements in articles must be presented in accordance with the relevant Manual of Style guideline, regardless of the preferences of individual editors.

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.

July 27

Category:Wikipedians who hate when it rains

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 WP:IAR early closure, orphaned category with only one entry, not likely to grow. — xaosflux Talk 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article violates WP:MYSPACE and has no collaborative potential. It only has one user (the creator) and it says on his page "Hey, I guarantee the following category gets deleted within a week." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Anchor (talkcontribs)

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.

July 26

Category:Wikipedians who use EuroBillTracker

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 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely using a website (in this case, an object tracking site) does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject itself or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category.

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 use del.icio.us

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 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely using a website (in this case, a social bookmarking site) does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject itself or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category.

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 use Digital Spy

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 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely using a website (in this case, an entertainment news and discussion forum site) does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject itself or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category.

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 use Digg

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 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely using a website (in this case, a social bookmarking/blogging site) does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject itself or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category.

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 use Upcoming.org

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 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely using a social calendar website does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the website itself (or, more generally, in the subject of social calendar websites) or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category.

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 use Whirlpool

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 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely being a member of an internet forum does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the forum itself or an above-average ability to contribute content about the subject. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason that someone would purposely browse through this category. Also, the only user in the category has been inactive for 11 months (see here).

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 use LiveJournal

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 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. Merely being a member of a virtual community, especially one that does not require any technical specialisation, does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject itself. The affiliation expressed by this category is fine on userpages, but I can think of no encyclopedic reason someone might purposely browse through a category of Wikipedians who keep a LiveJournal.

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 bloggers

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 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site and this category presents little or no collaborative potential. It might be useful to know that a particular user maintains a blog, but I can think of no valid reason to browse through a category of bloggers. Blogging is not a professional activity (like, for instance, accounting), so I do not believe this category implies any sort of connection with subject expertise or knowledge of/access to sources.

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:Freethinking 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 debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Freethinking Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in freethought
Nominator's rationale: The current title implies a philosophical/political/religious affiliation, yet is populated by a userbox that states: "This user is interested in Freethought". Rename per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest or, if the topic is too narrow, upmerge to the parent category. By the way, I'm not certain whether "freethought" ought to be capitalised (as in the userbox). Black Falcon (Talk) 03:30, 26 July 2007 (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.

July 25

Subcats of Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers

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 upmerge. After Midnight 0001 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are in this nomination: Category:Wikipedians who use Mac Minis, Category:Wikipedians who use Powerbook G4 notebook computers, Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OSX Mail, Category:Wikipedians who use MacBook Pros

Rationale: These are all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers, but were not included in the big merge from the 6 July 2007 discussions. I think that all of these categories should be merged into the parent cat Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers under the same rationale used for the previous round of discussion. We don't need separate categories for specific iterations of the Macintosh. Horologium t-c 23:12, 25 July 2007 (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.

Subcats of Category:Wikipedians by personal computer

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 all 5 subcats. Collaborative potential could be valid if these PCs were used by editors and people needed to address concerns to allow them to edit or display pages, but these categories do not meet the standard set at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. After Midnight 0001 15:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories are in this nomination: Category:Wikipedians who use Acorn computers, Category:Wikipedians who use BBC computers, Category:Wikipedians who use Commodore computers, Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computers, and Category:Wikipedians who use ZX Spectrum computers.

Rationale: I have nominated these categories because, despite the names of the categories, they are related to people who used to own the computers listed. Four of the five categories explicitly state this in their category descriptions; the fifth (the ZX Spectrum cat) should be a subcat of the Sinclair cat, which states it is a "former" cat. None of these categories are useful for collaboration beyond the platform-specific article, and none of them (save the Amiga, which is in the Commodore category) have any web browsers designed for them, which severely limits the likelihood of them still being in use. Two of these categories are populated by the same single editor, who also belongs to another of the nominated categories. Recommend deleting categories, as they are "used to own categories" that are not useful for collaboration. (The Amiga, which is not currently a separate category, should be allowed to be recreated on the off-chance that someone on WP still uses it. Disclosure: I owned three Amigas, so my views may be a bit biased on this.) Horologium t-c 21:32, 25 July 2007 (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 physiological condition and all subcats

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 all per strength of augments. After Midnight 0001 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Having a particular condition does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about said condition to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nomination includes the following subcats:
  • Category:HIV-positive Wikipedians
  • Category:Synaesthetic Wikipedians
  • Category:Deaf Wikipedians
  • Category:Deceased Wikipedians
  • Category:Wikipedians with carpal tunnel syndrome
  • Category:Color blind Wikipedians
  • Category:Wikipedians with periodic paralysis
  • Category:Wikipedians with diabetes mellitus
  • Category:Wikipedians with Astigmatism
  • Category:Wikipedians with Cancer
  • Category:Wikipedians with Crohn's disease
  • Category:Wikipedians with Asthma
  • Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer
Keep Category:HIV-positive Wikipedians, Category:Deaf Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians with Cancer, and Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer; they all deal with multiple articles and potentially facilitate collaboration. (People who fall into these categories are more likely to have knowledge of, and access to, reliable sources for their particular conditions.) Delete the rest; they are either categories for which collaboration is limited to one page, or (in the case of "Dead Wikipedians") no collaboration is possible. Black Falcon noted the appropriate article for Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, which should be expanded as necessary. WP may not be a memorial, but there is nothing wrong with noting editors who have died; however, this does not mean we need to have a category for them. Horologium t-c 00:57, 27 July 2007 (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 programming language and all subcats

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 keep all. After Midnight 0001 10:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Knowing a particular programming language does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about said language to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, nomination includes following subcats:
  • Comment After looking a bit more closely at the list, I question the utility of the four Babel-style cats ( Category:User programmer/prog-1, Category:User programmer/prog-2, Category:User programmer/prog-3, and Category:User programmer/prog-4). Generally, I am a fan of broad, more-inclusive categories, but these may be a little too inclusive. I'm not sure that being an expert COBOL programmer with a user programmer-4 cat is going to be too useful for someone who is looking for a java programmer. Is there some functionality to these four cats that I am missing, or can they get overwritten? Horologium t-c 20:41, 26 July 2007 (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.

July 24

Category:Wikipedians with more than 50000 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 debate was speedy delete as G4 and per discussion with user. After Midnight 0001 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This may be speediable, but I'm not sure, so it's here. The parent category (Category:Wikipedians by edit count) was deleted in June, and this is the only subcat in the group. Incidentally, the only user in this cat is SlimVirgin, because that's where the userbox resides, which I will notify SV about. MSJapan 16:12, 24 July 2007 (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 instant messenger

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 all. After Midnight 0001 17:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (exception Category:Wikipedians who use Adium was not tagged - please relist this category if deletion is still desired.)[reply]

:Note: Nomination also includes all 10 subcategories: Category:Wikipedians who use Adium, Category:Wikipedians who use Fire, Category:Wikipedians who use Google Talk, Category:Wikipedians who use ICQ Instant Messenger, Category:Wikipedians who use IceChat, Category:Wikipedians who use MSN Messenger, Category:Wikipedians who use Pidgin, Category:Wikipedians who use Windows Live Messenger, Category:Wikipedians who use Xfire, Category:Wikipedians who use Yahoo! Messenger

Wikipedia is not a social networking site and these categories present no collaborative potential. Using a given IM service does not imply an above-average desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content to articles related to instant messengers. The idea that these categories are useful by facilitating communication between users is a flawed one. First, we have talk pages for that and communication between editors should, in most cases, be available for others to review. Second, communication via instant messenger can still be facilitated by use of a userbox on userpages. I can think of no reason (except social networking) for someone to actually browse through the category.

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 generation and all subcats

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 all. After Midnight 0001 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Being a particular age does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about that age group to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:
  • Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians
  • Category:Generation Y Wikipedians
  • Category:Generation X Wikipedians
  • Category:MTV Generation Wikipedians
  • Category:IGeneration Wikipedians
  • Category:Wikipedians in their 20s
  • Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
  • Category:Wikipedians in their 40s
  • Category:Wikipedians in their 60s
  • Category:Wikipedians in their 50s
  • Category:Wikipedians in their teens
  • Category:Wikipedians in their 90s
  • Category:Cold Generation Y Wikipedians
To put it another way, pretend Wikipedia is is a vast vacuum which sucks in people. The "anti-bias" argument basically says that Wikipedia tends to suck in people who are young, more than people who are old, and this leads to a bias because the people who are young hold certain views that are different. Put like this, it's clear that a step is missing -- why does Wikipedia attract more young people than old people. The answer is clear -- the "vacuum" sucks in people because they have certain traits. That is, the vacuum selects people with specific traits and mindsets, and they become Wikipedians. However, notice then, that age is dissociated; it is a correlative, not a causative force. That is, young people, more than old, tend to display these traits, and so get sucked in -- this causes the young/old disparity. However, one will notice that the people who have been sucked in display the traits which are the sources of the systemic bias regardless of their age! Thus, any age-based collaborative will not have any serious affect on bias here, since the associated of "different view" with "different ages" exists in the population and not in the self-selecting sample that we have here.
That is to say, it's like trying to get a fair assessment of the world's views on competitive eating at a hot-dog eating contest; yes, some people might be old, and others (most) young -- but, they're all still there to eat hot dogs. If we fall into this trap, we delude ourselves into pretending we're less biased than we really are. --Haemo 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to this statement: "The "anti-bias" argument basically says that Wikipedia tends to suck in people who are young, more than people who are old, and this leads to a bias because the people who are young hold certain views that are different." that's exactly NOT the point. No one is saying that young people have the majority opinion; every fricking person on the planet has a boatload opinions, none of which belong at Wikipedia. This is about resources and coverage in subject matter. Please read above for an accurate summation of the bias argument.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do these categories relate to resources and/or coverage in subject matter? Randomly contacting people by age to see if they have access to sources published around the time of their birth/youth is extremely inefficient because the connection between age and resources (access to sources) is tenuous at best. I have yet to see in any of the comments made here how approximate time of birth relates to access to sources. As far as "coverage", I think we can agree that there is no reason to expect a significant correlation between age and interest. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:38, 29 July 2007 (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 own albums and all subcats

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 all. After Midnight 0001 14:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Owning albums by a particular band does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about a specific artist to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:
  1. Category:Wikipedians who own Nirvana albums
  2. Category:Wikipedians who own Pearl Jam albums
  3. Category:Wikipedians who own Soundgarden albums
  4. Category:Wikipedians who own Metallica albums
  5. Category:Wikipedians who own The Offspring albums
  6. Category:Wikipedians who own Radiohead albums
  7. Category:Wikipedians who own Pink Floyd albums
  8. Category:Wikipedians who own Nine Inch Nails albums
  9. Category:Wikipedians who own Kraftwerk albums
  10. Category:Wikipedians who own Joy Division albums
  11. Category:Wikipedians who own Tool albums
  12. Category:Wikipedians who own Alice in Chains albums
  13. Category:Wikipedians who own Franz Ferdinand albums
  14. Category:Wikipedians who own Kaiser Chiefs albums
  15. Category:Wikipedians who own AC/DC albums
  16. Category:Wikipedians who own Ramones albums
  17. Category:Wikipedians who own Stone Temple Pilots albums
  18. Category:Wikipedians who own Velvet Revolver albums
  1. Category:Wikipedians who own Pantera albums
  2. Category:Wikipedians who own The Misfits albums
  3. Category:Wikipedians who own Social Distortion albums
  4. Category:Wikipedians who own Rancid albums
  5. Category:Wikipedians who own Bad Religion albums
  6. Category:Wikipedians who own Suicidal Tendencies albums
  7. Category:Wikipedians who own "Weird Al" Yankovic albums
  8. Category:Wikipedians who own Monster Magnet albums
  9. Category:Wikipedians who own Rage Against the Machine albums
  10. Category:Wikipedians who own The Police albums
  11. Category:Wikipedians who own Guns N' Roses albums
  12. Category:Wikipedians who own Sublime albums
  13. Category:Wikipedians who own System of a Down albums
  14. Category:Wikipedians who own Sonata Arctica albums
  15. Category:Wikipedians who own Skid Row albums
  16. Category:Wikipedians who own Iron Maiden albums
  17. Category:Wikipedians who own The Smashing Pumpkins albums
  18. Category:Wikipedians who own Jane's Addiction albums
  19. Category:Wikipedians who own Faith No More albums
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.

July 23

Category:Wikipedians interested in gardening/Japanese gardening

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, C1 (I've been watching this and it's been empty for at least 4 days) ^demon[omg plz] 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in gardening/Japanese gardening to Category:Wikipedians interested in Japanese gardening
Nominator's rationale: To remove "gardening/". Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Moved out of the "speedy nominations" section at 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC) to solicit more discussion regarding the respective merits of renaming and upmerging.)

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.

July 22

Category:Wikipedians by mobile service

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 all. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Using a particular phone service does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about a specific company to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this includes subcats, as they are identical in scope. ^demon[omg plz] 00:34, 24 July 2007 (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.

July 21

Category:Wikipedians who use eBay

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 ^demon[omg plz] 15:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Using a website, especially one that does not require particular technical specialisation and is used by so many, does not imply an above-average ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. People active on the Internet use dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. I can think of no valid, encyclopedic reason someone might purposely browse through this category.

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:Hull City A.F.C. 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 debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian Hull City A.F.C. fans. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hull City A.F.C. fans to Category:Wikipedian Hull City A.F.C. fans
Nominator's rationale: userbox-based category, needs to have "Wikipedian" in category title so that it's not mistakenly placed on articles (again). WP:CFD declined jurisdiction here. BencherliteTalk 13:04, 15 July 2007 (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 in Kingston

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians in Kingston, Ontario. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Kingston to Category:Wikipedians in Kingston, Ontario
Nominator's rationale: To prevent possible confusion with Kingston, Jamaica and per the convention of Category:Wikipedians in Ontario. Unlike places like Toronto, Kingston is not an internationally-known location. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as per nom. Of the 30 or so places that are named Kingston with Wikipedia articles, only the one in Jamaica is significant enough to go without a provincial or national qualifier. Horologium t-c 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, although I'd disagree with the statement of Horologium. Even Kingston, Jamaica should have a national qualifier, as that observation is merely PoV.  — superbfc talk | cont ] — 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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 of Costa Rica

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians in Costa Rica. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of Costa Rica to Category:Wikipedians in Costa Rica
Nominator's rationale: Change "of" to "in" per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location. The category describes itself as one for "Wikipedians who live in Costa Rica". Black Falcon (Talk) 01:40, 13 July 2007 (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.

July 20

Category:Wikipedians on school break

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 02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for "Wikipedians who are currently on a school break or holiday." There is no value to having a category for this. It may be useful to know that a specific user is on break, but that information is better conveyed via userpages. There is no valid reason one would look through the category specifically to seek out users that are on break.

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.

July 18

Category:Wikipedian Club Pogo members

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 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site for other websites. This category presents little or no collaborative potential as being a member of a website, especially one that is free and does not require any technical specialisation, does not imply an interest in the subject. There are thousands of similar websites and people active on the Internet use dozens, if not hundreds, of them. In addition, any limited collaborative potential is restricted to one article and so can be carried out on the article's talk page. I can think of no valid, encyclopedic reason someone might purposely browse through this category.

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.

July 17

Category:Psuedoreligionist 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 debate was delete all. After Midnight 0001 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(nomination includes subcats: Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians)

This category (and all of its subcats) are joke categories, implying adherence to the tenets of non-existent religions. They are (marginally) appropriate as userboxen, but not as categories, because no collaboration is possible. To top it all off, the parent category is misspelled. The main articles for four of the five subcats note in the first paragraph of their introductions that they are parodies or satirical religions; the Cthulhu article notes that it was created as a literary device by H.P. Lovecraft for a series of books. They certainly do not belong in Category:Wikipedians by religion, and it my position that there is no need for them at all. People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats.

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 wear the Hijab

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 02:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who wear the Hijab to Category:Muslim Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: This is a userbox-populated category that contains only one user. It can be viewed in one of two ways. The title implies that it's a category for users who wear a certain item of clothing (yes, it has religious significance, but it's still just one item of clothing). The userbox suggests that this is a category for expressing pride in one's identity (rather than merely expressing it), in which case WP:NOT#SOAPBOX applies. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 17 July 2007 (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 being thug

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 per CSD G7 (author request). Black Falcon (Talk) 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being gramatically incorrect, this category is meaningless and has no collaborative potential. The category has only one user (the creator).Frank Anchor 02:24, 17 July 2007 (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.

July 16

Television Station 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 debate was Delete all ^demon[omg plz] 22:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These five categories (all created by an astonishingly prolific userbox creator to attach to his creations) are categories for people who watch specific television stations. No collaborative potential, and they are (thankfully) the only categories of their type. They need to be nuked.

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.

July 15

Category:Wikipedians with committed identities

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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single reason to go through this category to search for users. If one displays their committed identity on their page, that will serve them just fine if their account is hacked. The category, on the other hand, groups the users for no purpose. Octane [improve me] 16.07.07 0231 (UTC)

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:Members of WikiProject disease

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 speedily delete per CSD G6 (housekeeping). Wikipedia:WikiProject Disease was deleted on 23 June per a Miscellany for deletion discussion. In addition to being a suspected sockpuppet, the category's only member has not edited since March 2006. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of WikiProject disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no Disease WikiProject. Only one user is in this category, User:Code Napoleon, who is suspected to be a sock puppet of the category's creator (User:General Eisenhower). This category serves no purpose and should be deleted. Scott Alter 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[note: this is a relist that was posted originaly at WP:CFD]-Andrew c [talk] 05:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Non-existent project merits speedy removal. Horologium t-c 17:42, 15 July 2007 (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 interested in railroads

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 the categories Category:Wikipedians interested in railroads and Category:Wikipedians interested in trains to Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in railroads to Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport
Nominator's rationale: Category names should correspond to the names of their relevant articles: in this case, rail transport. Moreover, "railroad" is the American equivalent of the British term "railway"; "rail transport" is more neutral. Finally, renaming to "rail transport" offers the opportunity of merging the closely-related and severely underpopulated Category:Wikipedians interested in trains, which is also included in this nomination.
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.

July 14

Category:Wikipedians who use E17

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 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who use E17 to Category:Wikipedians who use Enlightenment
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. This a category for one version of a window manager program and includes only one user. There is no article for E17; it is mentioned only in a section of Enlightenment (window manager). Moreover, according to the article, the version is still "in active development" (though that information may be outdated).
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 use Lotus SmartSuite

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 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. It is a category for editors who use IBM Lotus SmartSuite (an office suite). However, the mere fact of using a given software does not indicate an above-average ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about it. Also, the category includes only one user (its creator) who left the project in January 2007.

(Note: An equivalent category – Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Office – was deleted per a recent discussion.)

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 use RateMyProfessors.com

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 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Using a website, especially one that does not require any technical specialisation, does not automatically imply an interest in the subject. People active on the Internet use dozens, if not hundreds, of websites. In addition, any limited collaborative potential is restricted to one article and so can be carried out on the article's talk page. Finally, the category contains only one user (and has been that way since at least April), despite being created in January 2006.

Delete Though some one may try make a user box.

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.

July 13

Category:Wikipedians interested in Egyptian History

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in Egyptian History to Category:Wikipedians interested in Egyptian history
Nominator's rationale: To remove capitalisation of "history". Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 11 July 2007 (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 interested in History of Armenia

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in History of Armenia to Category:Wikipedians interested in Armenian history
Nominator's rationale: To remove capitalisation of "history" and per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in history. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 11 July 2007 (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 interested in History of Africa

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in History of Africa to Category:Wikipedians interested in African history
Nominator's rationale: To remove capitalisation of "history" and per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in history. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:56, 11 July 2007 (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.

July 12

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:The Friends' School, Hobart

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The Friends' School, Hobart. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:The Friends' School, Hobart to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The Friends' School, Hobart
Nominator's rationale: To add a space after "alma mater:" per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (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 live in Leiden

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 to Category:Wikipedians in Leiden. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who live in Leiden to Category:Wikipedians in Leiden
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:53, 8 July 2007 (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 alma mater:University of Tasmania

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Tasmania. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:University of Tasmania to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Tasmania
Nominator's rationale: To add a space after "alma mater:" per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:25, 8 July 2007 (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 cab drivers

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 to Category:Wikipedian cab drivers. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who are cab drivers to Category:Wikipedian cab drivers
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by profession. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:47, 8 July 2007 (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 believe in Roman Catholic Church

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 to Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians believe in Roman Catholic Church to Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: The two categories are redundant, only the former has a longer (non-standard) title and is used by only one user – the creator of the userbox. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 8 July 2007 (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 Interested in the Salem Witch Trials

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Salem witch trials. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians Interested in the Salem Witch Trials to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Salem witch trials
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Black Falcon (Talk) 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse rename per nom. --Haemo 09:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse rename to standardize.Horrorshowj 14:52, 4 July 2007 (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.

July 11

Category:Wikipedians who use Yahoo!

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 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT, non-article pages that do not serve to categorise articles should provide "a foundation for effective collaboration". This category does not do that. For one thing, it is too broad to foster effective collaboration. According to the article Yahoo!, Yahoo! is "the most visited website on the Internet" with over 400 million unique viewers and an average of about 3.5 billion pageviews per day. In addition, simply using a given website (especially one as popular as Yahoo! and one that doesn't require technical specialisation) implies neither an ability nor a desire to collaborate on articles related to the website. Please also note that the related Category:Wikipedians who use Google and Category:Wikipedians who use AOL have been deleted.

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:Opaque 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 debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this single-user category poses a dilemma. If these users indeed "prefer to reveal little or no personal information about themselves", why reveal this fact? :)

More seriously, the category serves no collaborative purpose (WP:NOT#MYSPACE), is not a major user preference (which some consider a relevant factor), and the term itself is likely a neologism. A category should exist only if it is somehow useful and if there is a valid reason someone might browse through it; I can think of no use to a category for users who prefer to reveal little information about themselves (a blank or nearly-blank userpage conveys that message quite effectively) nor a valid reason for someone to look for such users.

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 using or awaiting approval for VandalProof

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. There is a process for requesting access at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. --After Midnight 0001 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who are using or awaiting approval for VandalProof to Category:Wikipedians who use VandalProof
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not myspace. There is absolutely no need to have a category for users "awaiting approval" for VandalProof. This is a prime example of overcategorisation.
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.

July 10

Category:Wikipedians that read Rooster Teeth comics.

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 rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Rooster Teeth Comics. After Midnight 0001 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific for collaboration. Additionally, several errors are in title so it at least needs a rename. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Relisted from July 4. Add additional comments below)

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 use userboxes for statistical reasons

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 deleted by After Midnight. Shalom Hello 05:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly confused by this category as I cannot think of a single (worthwhile) "statistical reason" for providing information via userboxes as opposed to some other means. Even if there is some reason, do we need a category telling us who does this? I don't mind people doing it (although I'm not quite sure I actually know what it is), but do we really need to know about it? ;) I hope this confused nomination from a confused nominator will not be the cause of too much confusion.

(Note: Relisted from July 4. Add additional comments below)

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 non-brave administrator hopefuls

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 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia non-brave administrator hopefuls to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls
Nominator's rationale: There are a few reasons for my nomination. First, the categories are essentially redundant. Most editors in the "administrator hopefuls" category likewise do not want to nominate themselves for some reason (too soon, not brave enough, etc.). Second, I see no purpose in distinugishing between regular and "non-brave" admin hopefuls. Third, belonging in this category is likely to earn one or more opposes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship if an editor ever decides to try. I've seen more than a few occasions where a candidate was opposed for not being confident enough. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:22, 10 July 2007 (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 suffer from I-don't-know-where-to-put-it disorder

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. Not collaborative and don't need a category based on an essay for one user. After Midnight 0001 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category created to support a userbox created to support a personal user essay. Aside from the fact that the "syndrome" probably has or will affect all Wikipedian regulars at one point or another, the category does not provide "a foundation for effective collaboration". Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:11, 10 July 2007 (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 sign their posts

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 14:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much too broad – includes tens of thousands of editors. In addition, the category does not provide "a foundation for effective collaboration".

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.

July 9

Category:Wikipedians who come from Åland Islands

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 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to categorise users based on where they are and not where they come from. In addition, the only member of this category is a WikiProject page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This nomination was originally listed under the "Speedy nominations" section. Listed for discussion at 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

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 spend time on Wikia

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 14:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This category presents little or no collaborative merit since merely spending time on a website does not improve one's ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the website nor suggests a desire to do so. In addition, any potential collaboration is restricted to one article, so that article's talk page is a better venue for coordination. For the purpose of simply conveying a personal association, the userbox suffices.

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.

July 8

Category:Wikipedians who live in Copenhagen

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 rename all. I am disinclined to remove categories from the userboxen that aren't currently used, since then people will wonder why they don't get categorized if they use them in the future. Suggest if you want the empty ones deleted, that you discuss with User:Patricknoddy. After Midnight 0001 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who live in Copenhagen to Category:Wikipedians in Copenhagen
Category:Wikipedians who live in Espoo to Category:Wikipedians in Espoo
Category:Wikipedians who live in Göteborg to Category:Wikipedians in Göteborg
Category:Wikipedians who live in Kaunas to Category:Wikipedians in Kaunas
Category:Wikipedians who live in Klaipėda to Category:Wikipedians in Klaipėda
Category:Wikipedians who live in Malmö to Category:Wikipedians in Malmö
Category:Wikipedians who live in Riga to Category:Wikipedians in Riga
Category:Wikipedians who live in Sarajevo to Category:Wikipedians in Sarajevo
Category:Wikipedians who live in Stockholm to Category:Wikipedians in Stockholm
Category:Wikipedians who live in Tallinn to Category:Wikipedians in Tallinn
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some of these categories contain no actual users (only the userbox). Perhaps it is better to simply delete those categories.

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 live in Georgia (U.S. state) but is not a native

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 (merge). After Midnight 0001 13:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing where a user currently resides can be useful for collaboration. Knowing whether they are a native of the place where they currently reside can not. In addition, this is a "not" category. As all 5 members of the category are already in Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state), merging is not needed.

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 listen to video game music

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 keep (no consensus to rename). As a side note, a decision to rename a populated category should ideally be influenced by consideration of both what the category should be used for and what it actually is used for. In some cases, creating a new category may be more appropriate than renaming an existing one. My comment applies not to the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of renaming this category, but rather to the extent that that the issue of actual use was considered in the discussion (if the issue was considered, it was not apparent from various comments). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precious little potential for encyclopedia-building. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Sean William @ 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I had purposely held off on providing a !vote, but when we start getting contributions like this, I'll change my mind. I don't see the collaborative use of the category, but the consensus from a week ago was to keep. I may not agree with a result, but I'm not going to continue renominating it until I get my desired result. We had an extremely high-profile ArbCom case over a contributor who was absolutely eviscerated over similar behavior; let's not do the same here. Horologium t-c 19:18, 11 July 2007 (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.


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 both to Category:Wikipedians interested in military history, the WP where the articles exist. After Midnight 0001 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in F4 Phantom[edit]

No encyclopedic use, and almost empty. Sean William @ 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in F16 Fighting Falcon[edit]

No encyclopedic use, and almost empty. Sean William @ 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suggest adding the F-4 cat as well; the lone user in both groups is also in the aviation cat. Horologium t-c 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Categories were only just created yesterday. And it fits the description of an "interested in" category.--WaltCip 16:07, 8 July 2007 (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 referee/umpire sports

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 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category should either be deleted or renamed to Category:Wikipedian referees and made a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession. Since the category contains only one user (the creator) and since there is no indication that the user is a professional referee and no reason to think that being a referee is particularly relevant to encyclopedic collaboration, I believe deleting to be a better option.

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 enjoys studying about fractals

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 rename. After Midnight 0001 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who enjoys studying about fractals to Category:Wikipedians interested in fractals
Nominator's rationale: The text of the userbox which populates this category is: "This user enjoys studying about fractals". I think that "enjoy studying about" is essentially a longer formulation of being "interested in". So, rename per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest. If my proposal is rejected, the category would still have to be renamed to drop the "s" at the end of "enjoys". Black Falcon (Talk) 06:43, 8 July 2007 (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 enjoy pornography

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 13:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE and the category namespace is not the appropriate place to express personal likes and dislikes that are irrelevant to encyclopedic collaboration. Enjoying pornography is not the same as being able to contribute or being interested in contributing encyclopedic content about it. Think, for instance, of sex, eating, and vacationing; most people enjoy these, but this does not translate into an encyclopedically-relevant desire or ability to edit articles related to those topics.

  • "Wikipedians who are interested in pornography" does not appear, to the reader, that they are interested in collaborating on pornography, but rather interested in reading it in general.--WaltCip 15:10, 8 July 2007 (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 believe in HaShem

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 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who believe in HaShem to Category:Jewish Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: According to the article Names of God in Judaism, "many Jewish people will call God 'Hashem', which is Hebrew for 'the Name'". So, in essence, this is a category for Jewish Wikipedians who believe in God or, following the descriptive text of the category, users who believe that God "helps them in their lives". I think it is overcategorisation to have this as a separate category, especially when the category's descriptive text goes against the idea that Wikipedia is not a platform for personal views. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. I had noticed that there was no linked article on this category, but had not yet added it to the list of merges. (I was trying to limit the number of religion-related merges I had submitted at once; mass submissions of UCfDs in a given category tend to create an atmosphere of targetting that category.) Horologium t-c 11:43, 8 July 2007 (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 support Liverpool FC

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 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who support Liverpool FC to Category:Wikipedian Liverpool F.C. fans
Nominator's rationale: The two categories express essentially the same idea, except that the former is phrased as a "support" category. The nominated category seems to be populated solely by transclusions of Template:User Liverpool FC. Black Falcon (Talk) 04:56, 8 July 2007 (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 support userboxes

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 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for users who support userboxes. However, userboxes require neither physical nor emotional support. :) Per the principle Wikipedia is not a battleground, grouping users by competing views on internal issues is generally not constructive. In addition, the category serves no encyclopedic purpose. This position can be adequately expressed via the appropriate userbox (or, in fact, via the use of any userbox) and does not require a category.

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 play Habbo Hotel

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 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This essentially empty category (the only member is the userbox; not even the creator is in the category) is intended to group users who belong to the Habbo Hotel virtual community. Being a member of a given website does not necessarily indicate an increased desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that website. In any case, the scope of any potential coordination is limited to one article, so the article's talk page is a better venue for encyclopedic collaboration.

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 use IMDb

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 13:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category holds little or no potential for encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of using a given website can indicate an improved ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it only in limited circumstances. This is not the case with IMDb – a website used by millions (if not more). The scope of this category is too broad to be of any real collaborative value. Why would anyone contact someone in this category?

Note: There is a similar deletion rationale presented by another editor on the category talk page.
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 home movie makers

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 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site and the category namespace is not the appropriate place to express what one does or does not "enjoy". This two-user category for amateur filmmakers presents no collaborative merit. While an argument could be made for retaining a category for professional filmmakers, who may be aware of published sources about filmmaking-related subjects, the same is not true for this category. Virtually anyone with a video camera can make home movies. Also, having an interest in making movies is not the same as having an interest in editing articles about filmmaking.