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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Kkrouni 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as meaningless as per nominator, SqueakBox 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, all cats that do not help collaborate are useless and should be deleted. Marlith T/C 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not needed. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 14:59, 6 August 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 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]
- Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since we have articles on these kind of orgs and people who join them are supposed to know at least something about the one they joined and maybe about others too.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is in fact almost impossible to write about them without having been a member or associated with a member. DGG (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kkrouni (talk • contribs) 3 August 2007, 00:35 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. Marlith T/C 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I fail to see the harm to the project. SchmuckyTheCat
- Weak delete, largely because I am unconvinced by the arguments to "keep" offered so far. I find the "no harm" argument to be rather weak, since the continued existence of pages that violate WP:NOT#MYSPACE harms the project. The other argument, expressed Pacific PanDeist, is that members of these organisations are liable to know something about them. However, this type of hands-on/personal knowledge would, in most cases, constitute original research. Whether an editor is a member of these groups doesn't affect the fact that their contributions should be supported by reliable sources. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think arguments about "not myspace" are stretching that definition in that guideline. This is not a social networking site, OF COURSE. But, this is a project run by volunteers that relies on communication and consensus. That means social networking happens as part of the process. When people, not things, are doing social networking activities outside the processes for building an encyclopedia we put a stop to it. I don't see this category (or most any other nominated with that argument) as meeting that definition of what we are not. SchmuckyTheCat
- I realise that editors are volunteers and that's why I think content on userpages should be mostly uncontrolled, except when it actively undermines the project (e.g., blatant advertising, personal attacks, libel, and so on). I am also strongly opposed to the deletion of userboxes, except in the rare circumstances noted above (I wasn't around for the userbox wars, but I know what side I would have taken). However, I do not believe we should have user categories that exist solely to express a particular affiliation and have no relevance to the encyclopedia. To me, a category should exist only if there's a valid reason someone might browse through it. If a category is used solely as an alternative to typing a few words on one's userpage, I do not think that it's existence is justified. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- but possible usefulness was mentioned -- it should be seen as encouraging responsible editing of the relevant articles. 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's why I'm only slightly leaning toward deletion (in truth, I'm undecided) in this case. There is some collaborative merit if we assume that members of a fraternity/sorority are significantly more interested in the subject than non-members, but that is countered by the issue of inviting original research and/or potential conflicts of interest (particularly for members who are active within their organisation, such as "office"-holders). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that token, we should also eliminate all Wikipedians by university and Wikipedians by nationality categories. Is every American who edits United States violating COI? Of course not. And I don't think OR will be an issue - frats generally want to keep their secrets secret yes? Wl219 07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OR does not refer only to secrets. It can be something as simple as noting initiation rituals that have not yet been mentioned in a reliable source. As for the COI issue, a broad national affiliation is hardly the same as a specific organisational one. Moreover, I noted specifically that COI would be an issue for active (as the antonym of "passive", rather than a synonym of "current") members. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. not needed. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing productive could possibly come of potential COI violations. Abuse of category namespace. — Moe ε 21:53, 9 August 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:
- 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]
- Delete if there is an appropriate WikiProject for collaborative efforts relating to the artist. If not, then keep as this is the only way to do ANY sort of collaboration in this regard. Giggy UCP 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is very difficult to be objective about how a band sounds. One way to know if you will like a band is if people who share similar tastes in music also like that band. These categories provide an objective assessment in that respect which does not exist in any other form (to my knowledge) on Wikipedia. Kelpin 08:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopedia is not an appropriate source for finding out whether a band is "good". Moreover, given the spotty nature of self-categorisation, these categories provide nowhere near an "objective assessment" of the quality of a band's music, if such a thing can at all be objectively assessed. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have mis-read my comment. I didn't say anything about whether or not the band is good. What I am talking about is bands that have common fan bases. Most people who listen to Pink Floyd find that they like Porcupine Tree when they listen to them for example. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to the user, and in my opinion this is information that is useful to readers of the various bands entries. I doubt if many people who go to the Led Zeppelin band do so unless they actually have some interest in the band. Kelpin 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, but not information about its editors. How is knowing the preferences of Wikipedia editors useful to readers of articles? In any case, the articles don't link to these categories, so casual readers will likely never know about them. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, the corresponding wikiprojects (if they exist) are listed at WP:PROJDIR/MUS#Musicians. That said, delete the lot, as readers of an encyclopedia generally will not be browsing this category. Also the probability of a user(s) selected from these categories contributing in a useful, encyclopedic manner to the related articles isn't that spectacular compared to the general population. MER-C 09:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete every one of them, no collaborative potential whatsoever. - ∅ (∅), 12:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Kelpin — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... I didn't recommend keeping the categories. In fact, I argued against keeping them. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Comment stricken following replacement of "Black Falcon" with "Kelpin". Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Woops... — Ian Lee (Talk) 06:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And you may want to back up your argument with something other than "Strong Keep per so-and-so", because so-and-so received rebuttal that hasn't been answered to yet.--WaltCip 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am aware that this is not myspace, but I am also aware that people have their preferences toward their favorite artists they like to listen to. If this succeeds, then what is next. Film, TV, literature. Let the users have their choice. Chris 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existence or non-existence of a category does not affect an individual's "choice". As for expressing personal preferences that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia, users can do that on their userpages. Such expressions of preference are not appropriate in other namespaces. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's certainly nothing forbidding what you describe from happening. But one thing I've never seen a nominator do here is "Since X category has been deleted, Y category must be too,". They'll usually invoke a policy.--WaltCip 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - listening to a given band does not imply you know anything about it, or are inclined to collaborate on articles about it. If you like a band, or listen to it, tell us about it on your talk page -- however, I cannot think of any encyclopedic reason people will need to find someone who listens to a given band. All the reasons for keeping have been unencyclopedic -- Wikipedia is not here to help you find music you will like, nor is it here to help tell everyone about what bands you listen to. --Haemo 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Haemo. The categories do little or nothing to further collaboration. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no point in having the categories. Userboxes definately, but not categories.--Kkrouni 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lots of collaboration potential. Grue 07:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Shows which users are less likely to write negative things about the bands they like on Wikipedia. It's also nice to know which Wikipedia users share things with you. (Gothbag 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Could you clarify what you mean by "shows which users are less likely to write negative things about the bands they like"? All editors are required to write from a neutral point of view, so I'm not sure how personal likes/dislikes are relevant. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Useful for Myspace, not so much here. --Kbdank71 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is not a social networking site Corpx 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt all of them, no purpose, if you like the music edit the page and put it on your watchlist, SqueakBox 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all what's unencyclopedic? Saying that you listen to a band may not always mean you want to write about it or know about it, but it certainly greatly increases the probability. The people who know the bands know the negative things and are usually very glad to write about them. When we eliminate articles about popular music, we should eliminate these categories. These are perhaps the most useful groups for collaboration of all, so i wonder if the idea behind suggesting them for deletion isnt to eliminate user categories entirely? DGG (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oh good Lord.....--Amadscientist 06:11, 3 August 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yes, being a goon is community thing. No, it's not an encyclopedic community. --Haemo 07:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - no useful purpose. — Bob • (talk) • 22:59, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 2 August 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 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).
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Delete per nom. It really has no purpose at all.--Kkrouni 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Bob • (talk) • 22:58, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Marlith T/C 01:21, 3 August 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 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]
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 06:22, 2 August 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]
- Rename per nom though I wonder at this use of process, who will be grateful for this renaming and if people even use this category (for instance it's safe to assume that most university students have access to at least 3 of those types of sources). –Pomte 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as specified-it will be clearer and encourage the use. DGG (talk) 10:48, 2 August 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]
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 06:22, 2 August 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]
- Rename per nom. –Pomte 06:22, 2 August 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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. (as creator of the categories). No strong views; categories were just created to tie in with some lighthearted userboxes designed for those that want to trumpet academic success. I wasn't aware of a relevance threshhold for categories relating to Wikipedia users, but if if they fail such a test, then strip 'em out. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and the fact that the creator seems indifferent about them. ^demon[omg plz] 13:01, 2 August 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 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.
- Delete as nom, per the precedent of Category:Wikipedians by instant messenger. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, this is procedural. ^demon[omg plz] 22:24, 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.
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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, too broad to feasibly foster contribution. ^demon[omg plz] 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I think that if you use Customaty you should be able to find out if others use customary too, for the purpose of making things easier for the both of you. For example: I say hi to so and so and want to discuss something's height. If he's in category "Wikipedians who use US Customary measurements" then instead of writing 30 cm (12 in/ 1 ft) I could just write 1 ft. But if he's not than I write 30 cm. Sure not everyone's going to put themselves into a category but it would be quicker for some if the category's kept.--Kkrouni 02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since only 400 userpages appear in this category, a more general and, therefore, useful indicator would be a userbox (or category) indicating that the user lives in the USA. Just an idea. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of this system of measurements is also still used informally in a number of countries (the US system is, after all, based on the British Imperial system, which a number of Commonwealth countries still use, albeit informally), so your suggestion may not be totally appropriate. If there's a similar category for Imperial measurements, I'd suggest a merge.--Ramdrake 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wikipedians who use Imperial measurements was deleted per a recent UCfD discussion. In effect, I just don't see a purpose for the category. With so many conversion websites available free of charge, conversion from one system to another isn't much of an issue when it comes to online communication. If someone writes 30 inches and I don't know how much that is, it takes me 10 seconds to find out. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then.--Ramdrake 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the only reason we have user cats is too help people collaborate on a project. This does little to help. Marlith T/C 01:24, 3 August 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 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 (talk • contribs)
- No brainer speedy delete Not only a WP:POINT cat, but doesn't facilitate collaboration at all. Octane [improve me] 27.07.07 2215 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - does not aid collaboration in any way Elfalem 00:22, 28 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 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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ^demon[omg plz] 13:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think this one is too general to be useful as a category--there's nothing specific here that would be useful in collaboration. DGG (talk) 02:04, 28 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 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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. Octane [improve me] 26.07.07 2134 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nom. Horologium t-c 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but not quite per nom. The link in "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" is to "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration". Putting yourself into a category does not make social networking the focus of your user page, but this category does not provide "a foundation for effective collaboration". Bduke 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ^demon[omg plz] 13:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Advertising - Jet (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a blogger and I approve the deletion of this category. (Had to get in that last bit of advertising, heh) --Cyde Weys 00:30, 2 August 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: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]
- Merge to Parent Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers as nom. Note Changed from original Delete, which was in error, as per writeup. This error was corrected after ^demon's !vote. Horologium t-c 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as well. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ^demon[omg plz] 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Up Merge to parent, someone wanting to be creative with this could specify model with a piped link I suppose. — xaosflux Talk 23:31, 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.
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]
- Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no potential for collaboration. ^demon[omg plz] 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unlikely to ever contribute to the encyclopedia proper. Let it be known that I still own a Commodore 64; currently it is best suited to holding down the floor in my closet. I don't even remember how to load the programs I've written for it, much less do I want to. BigNate37(T) 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The command is CLOAD. (big grin) Horologium t-c 00:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep per the example given. These were notable, so the articles about them remain notable & are still edited --it is therefore important for collaboration to find the other people who can help. DGG (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — the rationale stated is in any case wrong on at least one count; many people still use Spectrums, as a check on WoS will rapidly verify. Korax1214 09:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The first four categories explicitly state (in their descriptions) that they are past affiliations (Wikipedians who owned). The Spectrum category self-describes as one for users who are "fans" of the Spectrum computer. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Knowing if someone has a computer or not could be handy to know if you need to leave them a message, and also it could determine a security status, but that would take to long to specify.--Kkrouni 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition, anyone who is a Wikipedia editor has access to a computer. These categories specify what particular type of computer a given editor used to use. These categories don't tell what computer an editor currently uses, but what computer an editor formerly owned. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seem useful. Grue 07:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? All of these user category discussions are essentially about ascertaining whether a given category (or group of categories) in any way benefits the encyclopedia, so a perspective on how these categories are useful (i.e., further collaboration) would be most helpful. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all no-brainer and others have expressed the arguments anyway, SqueakBox 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep - The category was originally described when I first created it as "These users own or used to own a Sinclair (blah blah blah)". I still do. Just because people "Used to own" - what the heck is the problem??? Thor Malmjursson 08:14, 2 August 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 all. Users in these categories are likely to have learned about the conditions from their doctors in the course of their treatment, and are more likely to have purchased books and collected other reference material regarding their condition. They may also be able to fact-check portions of the articles for statements that are potentially inaccurate and need citation, and they are in a position to ask their doctors for information and references. I also question whether all of these so-called "social networking" categories are really opposed to the goal of building an encyclopedia, or if they encourage people to build the encyclopedia by strengthening the sense of belonging to a Wikipedia community.
Also, Category:Deceased Wikipedians may be useful as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active (those who are deceased but still active could go in Category:Undead Wikipedians). Anomie 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Category:Deaf Wikipedians and Category:Deceased Wikipedians - absolutely should be kept, since being deaf significantly impacts a person's communication and the manner in which one contributes to Wikipedia. The deaf also help in maintaining the correct approach to deaf articles (ie - saying mute instead of dumb) and the collaboration potential here is significant. Additionally, I think for statistical and simple knowledge purposes, it is beneficial to have a record of contributors who have passed.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being deaf does not change how one views or types text on a screen; using 'mute' instead of 'dumb' is just plain NPOV writing, and does not require the existence of the user category. Searching for dead Wikipedians is just silly. For all the rest, I agree with ^demon's assessment that contributing based on these categories would be original research. Octane [improve me] 25.07.07 2101 (UTC)
- Strongly keep the Category:Deceased Wikipedians and strongly delete the rest, might as well have a "Category:Wikipedians who have suffered a serious head injury" et al but that would be unacceptable too, dead means notable if as a wikipedian one is notable already so we should keep that, SqueakBox 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Deceased Wikipedians, no opinion yet on the rest. The "deceased" category can never hope to be a complete record and I see no point in memorialising some deceased editors and not others, especially when that memorialisation is as trivial as inclusion in a category (for a possibly better approach, see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians). In response to the arguments for keeping that category: (1) the "deceased Wikipedians" category could indeed be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, but I can't think of a valid use of the latter; (2) as already stated, this 'record' of deceased Wikipedians can never hope to be complete; and (3) I see no reason to assume that the editors in Category:Deceased Wikipedians are notable. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the risk of sounding callous, Delete Category:Deceased Wikipedians, Keep the rest. If one of the main criteria of user categories is to help collaboration on certain topics by helping find users familiar with specific topics or conditions, this category defeats the purpose for very, very obvious reasons. The rest don't look problematic to me at this point, but some individual subcats might be nominated if they prove problematic in the future.--Ramdrake 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Deceased Wikipedians, delete the rest. ~ Wikihermit 00:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Urg. I wish these had not been grouped like this, since they all have different values to the project...
- 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]
- keep there are four I might use if it applied, which are astigmatic/colorblind/deaf/carpal tunnel, for I think they do affect the way one works here in ways that are often positive for collaboration. (Color-blind & carpal-tunnel most certainly, in evaluating interfaces. anyone who designs anything for computers needs to knows who to ask about these. ) I cannot personally imagine every using the others, but that is my personality, and I let everyone have their own. Why remove traces of individual identification for those who wish to show them in some more subtle way than userboxes. If I ddid wish to be known as , let us say, surviving cancer, I would certainly rather do it by a non-showy category listing than a userbox, and people should have the choice. Please ascribe it to my own insensibility rather than as criticism, but I find it hard to imagine why anyone would object. DGG (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Deceased Wikipedians in favor of properly maintaining Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, and keep the rest; Wikipedians with those conditions are likely to have access to reliable sources dealing with the conditions. WODUP 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think collaborative potential is self evident. The suggestion that "merely" having a disease does not create additional insight into it strikes me as a bit zealous. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - See archived discussion of Wikipedians who survived Cancer from June 15th when it was voted to Keep. The bona-fides for contributing to Wikipedia due to physical condition can (not always, but can) be as significant as college attended, degrees earned, and other experience. Mikebar 07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong Delete Why keep it? Just because you've got/had a problem dosen't mean you need your own categoty. Also as per nom.--Kkrouni 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An encyclopedia should not be the place to find others who share a common ailness with you Corpx 21:19, 1 August 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 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. I do not have a great fondness for these categories and do not use them myself even though I have used some programming languages for 40 years. However, I take issue with "such collaboration would be original research". It could be, but likely it would not be. Collaboration often leads to finding good sources. One person says "I think there was something by Bakus in 1960". The other says, "Oh, yes. It is in ACM". We have a lot of articles on programming languages. I think we could prune some of them where there are few articles. In general however, they could well lead to collaboration. I think it likely that only those people who really have a good knowledge of a language would put themselves in the category. I do not believe a mass discussion on so many categories is helpful. --Bduke 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is User:Ditocujo included? --Bduke 03:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was in the generated list of subcats, I forgot to remove it when posting it to UCFD, sorry. Striken. ^demon[omg plz] 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. There are many reasons for such categories. First, these are useful for possible collaboration on project-related technical issues, such as software and bots and the like. Second, these categories identify users who have some knowledge of a particular programming language, which means they can probably provide references or know what references would be reliable, and would be able to do fact-checking of existing articles during reviews, as anyone knows that while everything *should* be verifiable, not everything is directly sourced inline, meaning that expertise is actually useful (and is not dirty "original research"). Third, these categories identify users possibly interested in a particular subject, which may or may not be useful for a variety of purposes. Also, I like it. :P --- RockMFR 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this view here, specifically the part about bots and software. --Haemo 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, for all the reasons RockMFR gave. I emphasize the point that the categories indicate people who might be of help on technical issues even if they have nothing useful to contribute to the language article. I also question whether all of these so-called "social networking" categories are really opposed to the goal of building an encyclopedia, or if they encourage people to build the encyclopedia by strengthening the sense of belonging to a Wikipedia community. Anomie 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All, as per RockMFR, Haemo, and Anomie. However, it might be appropriate to reduce the number of parent categories of this cat; it is currently a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by skill, Category:Wikipedians by software and Category:Wikipedians by language. There are pros and cons to its inclusion to each of these; my personal preference would be Category:Wikipedians by software, but that category needs some serious housecleaning before it is useful. Horologium t-c 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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]
- At last a set of user categories that (like Babel) could conceivably be of some use. I'd say keep all because when I want to locate and discuss bot-related stuff with Schemers and other lispers, I'll probably want to find them using this mechanism. Similarly there may be people doing bot work in Python, Ruby or even Haskell, so deleting a cat because of its obscurity isn't a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Anomie. Octane [improve me] 25.07.07 2054 (UTC)
- Keep all. Useful for finding programmers in languages being used to interact with the project. — xaosflux Talk 22:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, these cats apparently serve collaboration purposes. I can check the users from the cats and invite them to improve the related articles. @pple 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per RockMFR's first point (collaboration on technical issues) and Tony Sidaway, with no prejudice for renomination of individual categories that are problematic. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but restructure parent cats as per Horologium.--Ramdrake 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no opinion either way on restructuring. Not only are these categories certainly helpful for collaboration (if need be, I do have programming manuals and the like around, and know where to find reliable material on programming, that's not original research), I can imagine it would also be quite helpful if, for example, someone with a bot or script in a specific language needed to turn over maintenance tasks temporarily or permanently to another editor skilled in the language it's written in, or for writers of software like Vandalproof and AWB to find people who may be able to help in development, testing, and debugging. That's valuable collaborative potential too! Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Useful, per above. ~ Wikihermit 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as useful per the above. The 5 day policy interval has passed and the result seems clear. Conrad T. Pino 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - useful from a collaborative perspective, esp. the more arcane languages like Forth (programming language) - Alison ☺ 06:12, 1 August 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]
- Delete It isn't speediable, but it should be. Editcountitis helps no one. Octane 25.07.07 0259 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Already deleted last month. --- RockMFR 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the possiblity of me being a member soon :p But seriously, these kinds of categories aren't particulary helpful. — Moe Epsilon 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - promotes input and wikipedia building.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per RockMFR. Parent cat and all other subcats were deleted last month, this one must've been an oversight. ^demon 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it's ridiculous. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as CSD G4, this was deleted on 13 June 2007 and recreated on 20 July 2007. BigNate37(T) 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it isnt at all collaborative or helpful to WikipediaFrank Anchor 19:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Another userbox with an inappropriate category appended. This is a G4. Re: Casliber's comment: Promotes edititis, which is a bad thing. Horologium t-c 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are other ways of advertising this kind of thing, look at my user page user box, SqueakBox 23:59, 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 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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only perceivable purpose is catcruft or social networking. Octane [improve me] 24.07.07 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - I think someone read my rationale for deleting the Skype version of this, because it's pretty much what I said there. ;) --Haemo 07:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There've been so many of these nominations for categories that are so alike that ... who knows? :P Black Falcon (Talk) 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Crufty meaningless cat, especially if people use more thna one (which they often do). MSJapan 20:58, 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 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
- Strong keep "Wikipedians in their...", but delete generation cats Age is a huge indicator of a person's experience (or lack thereof), viewpoint, access, and other factors that could be used for collaborative puposes. Categories like these are sometimes use for statistical purposes, and I imagine could also be used to seek out help for topics or projects that might be of generational significance - not for the addition of orignial research, but for access to verifiable resources. Me, being 26, would have less access to, say, vinyl records or a 1962 issue of Life magazine, than someone in their 50s. Aditionally, as it has been repeatedly proven the the English wikipedia has an institutional bias towards the perspective of 20-year-olds (as well as a US bias, a pop-culture overload and other slants) being able to collaborate efficiently with persons outside of this demographic can only be a good thing. Do you think if there were more effective callaboration and participation by editors in their forties and up we would delete 5000 "my tEAchre is ghey" articles a day, actually reach consensus on bad usage and grammar, or have articles on every single pokemon character but have exactly six good (not even FA) articles on archeology. While no demographic is all knowledgeable, nor all frivolous, more effective collaboration between generations can help curb any negative trends between demographics as well as enrich the project. And have a category for identification purposes can contribute to that end.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I do not think categorisation of users by age (or generational affiliation) facilitates encyclopedic collaboration. Given that Wikipedians come from a variety of national, religious, social, and other backgrounds, age cannot inform us about editors' interests or viewpoints (the latter is not appropriate for expression in the category namespace in any case). As far as access to sources, I think the connection is tenuous. Access to sources depends on so many other, more important factors. Take profession, for instance. An average university professor in the USA, likely aged 30-70, has better access to online journals than a tech-savvy 20-year-old who works in a fast food restaurant. A 20-year-old librarian is likely to have better access to books and magazine archives than a 50-year-old construction worker. In addition to profession, there is also nationality, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and topical interest (which is unrelated to age). In short, I do not believe these categories hold any value, discounting that which is ascribed to them through (1) what amounts to a hit-and-miss (mostly miss) attempt to connect age with access to sources (as suggested above) or (2) stereotyping with regard to interest. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With all due respect to your opinion (while acknowledging that age is far from the sole-criterium for a person's aptitude in contributing), to relegate age to an incidental or sterotypical aspect of a person is misguided. It has been commented here in wikipedia as well in numerous external sources that most regular Wikipedia editors are in their 20s, and by far, mostly under 49, and the systemic bias as a result are well-documented. Having a grip on the demographics of Wikipedia, as well as access to who fits where (voluntarily) can greatly help combat the systemic bias that is a natural risk to a project like this one.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and delete Systematic bias how so? Are certain age groups biased towards one opinion or another? Taking your statistic, that most Wikipedians are in their twenties or so, one need only look around at the plethora of opinions (many very dramatic and forceful) to prove that age != bias. Octane [improve me] 24.07.07 2044 (UTC)
- Reply Bias is not only about opinion; it's about representation. For example (quickly), Wikipedia also has a current-event bias and and a US bias, only because things that are happening now and nearby are more easier to research and are of greater interest to editors than things that happened a long time ago or far away. Case in point: Jennifer Wilbanks, the runaway bride who was presumed kidnapped but actually ran away to avoid marrying her fiance, has a much longer and in-depth article than Bernard Makuza, who has been Prime Minister of Rwanda since 2000. That's one reason why Category:Wikipedians by location is so useful - to be able to locate and organize editors to help balance the scales. And its also why Category:Wikipedians by generation is likewise a valuable resource for collaborative purposes.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Espirit15d, I didn't mean to suggest that your argument is based in a stereotype since you did not propose the existence of a connection between age and interest (#2 in my comment). The connection you offered was between age and access to sources (#1 in my comment), which is not stereotypical, but (in my opinion) produces an inefficient "hit-and-miss" approach of contacting users in a specific age group to see if they have access to a particular source. If you wanted to find someone with access to an issue of a magazine, randomly contacting people over a certain age would be far less productive than asking someone who is a librarian or is interested in magazines or has access to a university library. I won't dispute that some of the sysmetic bias in Wikipedia (mostly in terms of coverage of topics) is caused by the age distribution of its editors, but these categories cannot affect that in any way. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some and delete others. I would certainly delete Category:Wikipedians in their 90s as the only user in that category is also in Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s. I would support deleting Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians, Category:Generation Y Wikipedians, Category:Generation X Wikipedians, Category:MTV Generation Wikipedians, Category:IGeneration Wikipedians and Category:Cold Generation Y Wikipedians as they overlap with the others. I support keeping the categories that cover decades, in part for the reasons given above by others who want to keep these categories. I would also add that it is often said that wikipedia is written by teenagers and it is said as a criticism. That criticism is unfair but it is also untrue. These categories show we have quite a reasonable age spread as anyone going to a meetup knows, although meetups have a bias against teenagers. They are therefore useful in telling us something about the age spread of users. They could possibly be merged with the various Category:Wikipedians by year of births (or the reverse - merge those into these categories), but those only go back to those born in the 1950s. --Bduke 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this proposal.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Category:Wikipedians in their 90s per C1, the category is now empty. ~Iceshark7 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I honestly don't think that stereotypes about people in certain age groups, or different generations is a compelling reason to keep user categories. The systemic bias caused by a young demographic is not a product of the demographic being young -- it is the correlation of their age with certain beliefs and ideas. However, the nature of the project tends to attract people all all ages who share those beliefs and ideas -- a Wikipedian, of any age has already self-selected and is not an unbiased sample of the general population. No serious systemic bias can be fought by selecting people on this basis; to assert otherwise is to simply fool ourselves about the type of people the project attracts. --Haemo 07:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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]
- Delete— I'm in my teens, but this is encyclopedic. Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the "in their xx's", keep the by generations, optionally merge the by generations if they overlap. Useful means for locating editors with knowledge of (and hopefully unique sources for) period-specific event articles. — xaosflux Talk 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the in their xx's groups, my delete !vote on these is due to their requirement to be manually updated by users, while the generation type groups are purposefuly broad, but are timeless. — xaosflux Talk 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some -- the ones suggest by Bduke. this is not a categorization of all WPedians--just of those who choose to be so characterized. Nor it is a categorization of their actual ages--it is a categorization of the ages of their persona. were it compulsory, and real, then some of the objections above would be correct--anyone who chooses can come to WP without self-identification, and be accepted on equal terms based on the work done there. And many of us so choose. But someone may very well want to find those who either are or wish to say they are in their 20s -- or their 60s -- or even those who wish to say something about their age; it does indicate something--something which some wish to indicate and others not. Basically my feeling here, which I see is not widely shared, is that WPedians may put themselves into whatever non-abusive categories they please, and I see no reason to interfere. I say keep some, not keep all, primarily in an effort to compromise. DGG (talk) 03:55, 28 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:
- Category:Wikipedians who own Nirvana albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Pearl Jam albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Soundgarden albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Metallica albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own The Offspring albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Radiohead albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Pink Floyd albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Nine Inch Nails albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Kraftwerk albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Joy Division albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Tool albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Alice in Chains albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Franz Ferdinand albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Kaiser Chiefs albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own AC/DC albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Ramones albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Stone Temple Pilots albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Velvet Revolver albums
|
- Category:Wikipedians who own Pantera albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own The Misfits albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Social Distortion albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Rancid albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Bad Religion albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Suicidal Tendencies albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own "Weird Al" Yankovic albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Monster Magnet albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Rage Against the Machine albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own The Police albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Guns N' Roses albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Sublime albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own System of a Down albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Sonata Arctica albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Skid Row albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Iron Maiden albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own The Smashing Pumpkins albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Jane's Addiction albums
- Category:Wikipedians who own Faith No More albums
|
- Delete all Classic over-categorisation; joining the Albums WikiProject or the relevant band/genre WikiProject would be much more useful and efficient than all this duplication. Further, as ^demon outlined above, owning an album (or even all of them) does not equate to encyclopædic knowledge of the album or the band. Octane [improve me] 24.07.07 0145 (UTC)
- Delete all - I fit into five of these categories but have no business touching the substance of music articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - owning a specific album does not provide collaborative potential, no more than owning a fork will allow collaboration on fork. --Haemo 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, per above.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I cannot understand why I should want to prevent those of my colleagues who want from saying this; I'd encourage it rather than userboxes. If one of us owns some of these records and does not wish to be known as doing so, perhaps to avoid being asked for opinion on music articles, all one need do is not list it. DGG (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - These categories are too small (Some are even empty.) to have any purposeful help to maintain any Wikipedia article, especially when being in an album category does not actually tell, which album is in the question. Sounds more like social networking to me, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. ~Iceshark7 22:32, 28 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 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]
- CommentThe only current person in the category has specified (in the userbox) that he prefers Japanese gardening, but "gardening" is a bit more inclusive and covers more articles. Do you want to go small, or should we make it broader? Horologium t-c 19:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested renaming instead of upmerging because of the existence of Category:Japanese style of gardening. However, upmerging may be appropriate given the initial wording of the userbox ("This user prefers Japanese gardening"), which doesn't necessarily imply any sort of encyclopedically-relevant interest (and which I've changed). Feel free to move this nomination out of the "speedy" section if you think it requires some discussion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, per Black Falcon. @pple 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP THE TITLE! KEEP THE TITLE! KEEP THE TITLE! THE TITLE IS REALLY GOOD. IT IS A SUBPAGE! --Riley the Kirlia 00:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subpages are only used for talk pages (if needed). Categories should not have subpages, but should rather be subcategorised by linking to the parent category. Also, please consider not using all caps ... it could be construed as shouting. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:23, 23 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.)
- Strong Delete - It is not Encyclopedic. Sawblade05 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I want Wikipedia to be a fansite! --Riley the Kirlia 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Not only that the category is now empty, but Category:Wikipedians interested in gardening only has 3 people in the category, and it does not really need any extra gardening categories at the moment. ~Iceshark7 22:35, 28 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 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]
- Delete - the encyclopedia cannot possibly care which mobile phone provider you use. No collaborative potential. --Haemo 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - It is not Encyclopedic. Sawblade05 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possession of an object or service does not equivocate to knowledge thereof. Octane [improve me] 24.07.07 0142 (UTC)
- Delete per social networking--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:49, 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per the criteria set out by Black Falcon, this category is is no way helping to build the encyclopedia, the only actual small but of relevance it could have is to the article, EBay, Rlest 14:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY KEEP! SPEEDY KEEP! SPEEDY KEEP! EBay is popular. The category should be kept. --Riley the Kirlia 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion does not qualify for speedy keeping (please see the criteria). As for EBay being popular ...... so? What value is there in a category that provides a directory of users who use EBay? Black Falcon (Talk) 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid Speedy Keep criteria. Vote to be struck.--WaltCip 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no convincing reason why this could be helpful. Malc82 23:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - using a website, be it Google, Ebay, or whatever else is, in general, not of any collaborative use. --Haemo 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - It is not Encyclopedic. Sawblade05 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - What's next, Wikipedians who use Wikipedia? (ESkog)(Talk) 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 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: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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - People who are on school break may or may not edit more (or less) on Wikipedia as a result. This category is confusing at best.--WaltCip 21:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But thats why I created this template! It adds users to this category and there is a choice between being 'Free' or being 'Busy'. Please see it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the template provides useful information about individual users' activity level, but have been unable to think of a purpose for the category (i.e., a reason why someone might purposely look for users who are on school break). Perhaps I'm overlooking something? Black Falcon (Talk) 23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can see why this template/userbox is useful...but why would we need a category? --Haemo 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The template with the two alternatives is indeed useful, but nobody is trying to delete it. The category however serves no purpose and should be deleted. --Bduke 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - It is not Encyclopedic. Sawblade05 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no collaborative potential. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - seems somewhat suspect, but how is this different from users who are on a wikibreak? The truth is, people who are on break from real life (or not) may be able to contribute more, and thus be sought out. I can't tell you the number of times some previously unknown editor has sought me out for a neglected or tedious task. Maybe such seekers could start here.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Until we get a category system that goes 'On break and interested in x', your argument really doesn't make sense. :/ You're suggesting that someone would start with a category of more active users, whose specialities/interests are completely unknown to the seeker. Wouldn't it make more sense to start in an 'Wikipedians interested in. . .' category and start leaving messages on the cat members' talk pages? The worst that happens in the latter scenario is duplication or the seeker doesn't get a reply. With your suggested method, the seeker would effectively be spamming talk pages. Octane [improve me] 24.07.07 2041 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ^demon[omg plz] 15:14, 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.
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.
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason we put a stake in Category:Wikipedian Facebook members and Category:Wikipedian Myspace members; they have no collaborative potential, and serve no encyclopedic purpose. --Haemo 06:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - It is not Encyclopedic. Sawblade05 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not collaborative. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:36, 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 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.
- Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. There is no collaborative value to these categories. Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. These are excellent for userboxes (I particularly like the text of ((User:Coelacan/Userboxes/Cthulhu))), but make poor categories. If kept, at least rename the parent category to fix its spelling. If anyone can provide a valid reason that someone might actually browse through one or more of these categories, I will reconsider my recommendation. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all and move Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians to Category:Pseudoreligionist Wikipedians. These categories relate to the philosophical identity of their members. You may not like appreciate the satirical nature of these philosophies. Feel free to, in your own mind and your own writing, dismiss them as real or valid. Don't expect that the people who appreciate and identify with these philosophies will appreciate that point of view, however.
More to the point... Some editors may find such a category useful for collaboration on related subjects. These are as fundamentally valid as most other Wikipedians by <whatever> categories, and certainly as valid as any Wikipedians by <philosophy|religion|some-other-way-of-thinking> category. But yes, fix the spelling of the name. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If they are philosophical categories, then they belong in Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, not Category:Wikipedians by religion. However, since the "religions" are satirical in nature, one cannot honestly claim them to be a philosophical view. In fact, the talk page for the Flying Spaghetti Monsterist article specifically (in a banner at the top of the page, no less) says "From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article." That pretty much blows your argument out of the water, at least for the noodly one. As to your claim about using them for collaboration, Invisible Pink Unicorn is already tagged as part of WikiProject Atheism, which seems to be an excellent idea. As I said, people who wish to have a category that indicates their disbelief in a supernatural being have a variety of choices in Category:Atheist Wikipedians, from the relatively benign Category:Objectivist Wikipedians or Category:Atheist Wikipedians, to Category:Antitheist Wikipedians, which is a lot more forceful. If you feel that Cthulhu fans would be better served by Category:Dystheist Wikipedians—Hey, look at that! It already exists. Some of these "religions" exist solely to mock other religions (CotSG was originally a parody of Scientology, and some of the material in the Pink Unicorn article mocks Islam—"blessed be Her Holy Hooves", et al), which is divisive and demeaning. Not sharing another's religious beliefs is one thing; openly mocking them is quite another, and we should not allow the user cats to propogate such attitudes. Horologium t-c 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that these points of view can be hard to accept, or even to acknowledge. It is human nature to respond to things which seem strange as though they do not exist. Please understand that some people really do have religious beliefs that encourage satire, parody, and humor in general. I'll admit that very few followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster are likely to take offense at you dismissing their belief as a pure farce; for the most part, it is. On the other hand, the Church of the SubGenius is active and organized; many Discordians are sincere and passionate (even if they are also unserious to the point of silliness).
Much as it would be wrong to try to expunge the mocked religions, so would it be wrong to try to expunge the mocking religions. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all as long as the other "official" religious categories are kept, otherwise we're facing discrimination that DOES call for WP:ALLORNOTHING, per above keep vote.--WaltCip 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete all per the very well-written nom. There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 02:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Does not belong here. Sawblade05 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The nominated categories cover one article each (after which the categories are named); they are no more useful than simply using the talk page of those articles. Octane [improve me] 23.07.07 2242 (UTC)
- Delete all - no collaborative potential. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:36, 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 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]
- Merge as per nom. If the category is retained, a move out of the religion category should be considered, because the sentiment it expresses is more a political statement than a religious one. Horologium 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment perhaps the one user might have been asked or at least notified? I notified her now, as I think fair for at least all small user categories where there are active Wikipedians. DGG (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed straight-forward enough to me as not to require asking the creator for clarification. You're right, though ... I could have notified her (I assumed she'd have it watchlisted but that's just an assumption). Thanks for doing it. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering the progenitor's username, it would seem to be a classic case of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Octane 24.07.07 0138 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - NPOV Sawblade05 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not foster contribution. ^demon 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because we don't provide a soap box. Categories of wikipedians who wear the yarmulka, crucifix, ankh, turban, etc, if they exist, can go too for the same reasoning. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 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 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]
- Delizzle fo-shizzle per nomizzle.--WaltCip 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP keep this though funny,this is a distinct personality triat, and should stay on. It is like category:users that like pizza, it is a triat, why is that not deleted? Hpsander456 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:Wikipedians who like Pizza is not a user category, it is a userbox. This is a category, but it should be a userbox, if it exists at all. If you want a userbox, go ahead and create one, without the category. Categories should be useful for collaboration, which this is not; they should be linked to a Wikipedia article, which this is not; and they should be syntactically sound, which this is not. Horologium t-c 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. Liking pizza has nothing to do with being more useful as an encyclopedia editor... just like being thug. It doesn't matter how well your pants fit or which way the peak of your hat points. Also, please consider indenting in a way that is consistent with other users and not using CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL in your remarks. BigNate37(T) 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As another comment, the user who made the comment about the "liking pizza" category added that category to another user's page(the nominator) before reverting it a moment later. Horologium t-c 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in case my comment did not make clear my position on the cat. Horologium t-c 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteYou know what I ment, It is just a personal triat. Also do delete it, it didn't relize how dumb it was untill I thought about. sorry. Hpsander456 21:50, 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]
- Category:Wikipedians who watch WALB
- Category:Wikipedians who watch WCTV
- Category:Wikipedians who watch WSAZ
- Category:Wikipedians who watch WSB
- Category:Wikipedians who watch WTXL
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.
- Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There are thousands of television stations worldwide. Anyone with access to the internet (necessary for being a Wikipedian) likely has access to at least one TV station (in all but the least developed locales, probably several dozen). Merely watching programmes presented on a particular channel does not have any relevance to an editor's ability or desire to contribute to articles about that station. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Watching a given TV channel has zippo in the potential collaboration department. --Haemo
- 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)
- Delete per nom. Shalom Hello 02:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. There are a bunch of cats in the parent cat (Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status) that could be flushed without any harm to the project. Horologium t-c 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no help. @pple 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only use I can think of for this category is, uh, identify users who have committed identities. I guess this would be to ask them for help to commit your own identity...but that's not really an encyclopedic mandate in my mind. --Haemo 06:19, 20 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: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.)
- Delete as nom. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Because relevant knowledge of Lotus Smartsuite is held by a relative minority of people compared to knowledge of MS-Office (don't have stats, but I would daresay Ms-Office has an overwhelming share of the business suite market). This is an analogous argument to "why we deleted Category: Heterosexual Wikipedians but kept Category: Gay Wikipedians".--Ramdrake 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of MS Office was not the whole of my argument. My argument consisted of the fact mere use doesn't equal ability or desire to edit and that the category includes only one user who left the project in January. Besides, what relevant knowledge is there? It's knowledge of sources that matters; personal experience is not permitted per Wikipedia:No original research. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think users of it are more likely to use books or websites about it and thus know where appropriate sources are. Pinball22 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - using a software package, no matter how obscure, is very unlikely to help with editing unless we actually use it while editing, like with Adobe products. This isn't in that narrow category. --Haemo 06:21, 20 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 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]
- Comment: de-capitalising History is a good thing, but if you want consistency elsewhere, it should better be other way round: 1st, the article and category are named History of Armenia. 2nd, not all countries have suitable adjective (e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina) so it should be "History of Foo" rather than "Fooian history". Duja► 12:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For a case where no suitable adjective exists (for B&H, I think "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" is suitable), the naming convention is akin to : Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I suppose that raises two questions:
- Should all (or most) subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in history adhere to that standard?
- Is there a difference in meaning between "history of X" and "Xian history".
- Maybe it's just me, but I view the scope of "history of Armenia" to be narrower than that of "Armenian history". To me, the former implies coverage of the history of the particular region affiliated with Armenia (essentially the whole of the territory of the Kingdom of Armenia at its peak, whereas the latter more generally covers any subject that is relevant to the history of Armenia. Maybe it's just me and there is no real distinction between the two. As I think others' thoughts on the matter will be valuable, I have moved this discussion out of the "Speedy nominations" section. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not just you. As well as being clunky and pompous, the History of Foo restricts the scope of the content considerably. ROGER TALK 08:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories currently under discussion here are a bit dissimilar. Armenia is a country (as well as an ethnic identification), with boundaries that have changed over the years. Africa is a continent, with fixed boundaries; "History of Africa" and "African history" are essentially similar, because both cover the same area. I think tinkering with some of these categories might result in edit wars; this is not an unknown phenomenon in Wikipedia. Part of the problem is that ethnic nationalism transcends boundaries (look at the debate over Macedonia's name). It might be appropriate to have BOTH categories; one for the country itself, and one for the ethnographic history. This does not apply just to Armenia; Armenia just happened to be the unwitting guinea pig because of the categorization debate. Horologium t-c 13:05, 14 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
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]
- Endorse merge - the categories are redundant to each other. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. as per nom. This should be processed ASAP. Horologium t-c 19:10, 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 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]
- Merge as per nom. Not only non-standard, but grammatically incorrect. Horologium t-c 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Definitely a case of broken English, Pchomepi456 (talk · contribs) says on his user page that he's from Taiwan. As an odd side note, the user subpage his userboxen are on isn't from his own userpage. User:Pchomepig456/userboxes, notice the extra "g". Perhaps a page move is in order? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. The current title is confusing. --Haemo 01:42, 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 Interested in the Salem Witch Trials
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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - knowing what search engine an editor uses is very general, and provides no basis for collaboration whatsoever. --Haemo 05:47, 12 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: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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if you don't want to reveal information about yourself, well then...just don't! Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. "Opaque" is not a neologism in this sense, but the category is inherently opposed to collaboration. Horologium t-c 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, since as others have said, it should be obvious from the lack of such information. (When I first saw the name, I thought this was going to fall under categories that include all editors... ;) Pinball22 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is, at the heart, a "not" category; and as such, is useless for collaboration. --Haemo 00:11, 12 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 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.
Merge or Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. If they are using it, they can join the latter category. If they are not, there is no need to announce the fact. A merge is not a good idea because at least one of the three members of the former group does not yet qualify for the latter group (still in the waiting queue at Vandalproof). Horologium t-c 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. It would be useful to have a category for those awaiting approval (totally separate and not including current users), however User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval takes care of that function anyways. Due to the nature of the request process, this list maintains itself and so the category adds nothing. BigNate37(T) 13:12, 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 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]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Wikipedians who read Rooster Teeth comics. We have categories for Marvel Comics readers and DC Comics readers. Don't put down the little guy. But "who" is more appropriate grammatically. We should use "who" for people and "that" for things.Doczilla 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Rooster Teeth Comics and then keep. As long as Rooster Teeth has an article here (which, by the way, does have a section on Rooster Teeth Comics), there's no reason not to have a category made up of those knowledgeable about it. By renaming it as I suggest, we make it broader to the point where it is useful for collaboration even among those who do not actively read RTC, and respect the proper noun Rooster Teeth Comics, while incorporating Doczilla's grammatical correction and also removing the period (category names are never sentences, as far as I know). BigNate37(T) 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to be renamed, I think Category:Wikipedians interested in Rooster Teeth Comics would better conform to the standard of Category:Wikipedians by interest. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou, yes. BigNate37(T) 02:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I was under the impression that Rooster Teeth was a specific comic, not a publisher, so it would probably not be too specific for collaboration after all. A rename would be fine. VegaDark (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since I am not sure all users in this category who read Rooster Teeth are interested in it. I read a lot of books but I'm only interested in some of them. AW 09:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Relisted from July 4. Add additional comments below)
- Rename as per Black Falcon. Not a whole lot of collaborative potential, but not non-existent, and covers more than one article. Horologium t-c 17:40, 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 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that this category comes from a userbox that was originally made by User:Yearofthedragon. Maybe we should ask him. However, he has only edited three time, in early June, the whole of this year. He is much more active on the Spanish Wikipedia. The template was moved to user space and is at User:UBX/statistical reasons. Since there are a lot of users in this category, I think we should be cautious about deleting it until we hear from some of them about why they use this template and category. --Bduke 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought of asking him before starting the nomination, but then saw that he is only sporadically active (9 days in the past 12 months). I did not notice his Spanish Wikipedia account, but his activity there also seems similarly sporadic (21 days in the past 12 months). It might be worthwhile to ask him on es.wikipedia, but I nominated the category in the hope that perhaps someone here would know its purpose. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has an account on the Catalan WP also at [1] but that is not too active either. I too hope that one of the people who use this category tell us why. If they do not, then delete it. --Bduke 12:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps it is along the lines of measuring 'how many Wikipedians are foo' or 'how many Wikipedians support foo', etc. I can see the external value in these, but I'm not sure an internal user cat is really good. Octane [improve me] 04.07.07 1929 (UTC)
(Note: Relisted from July 4. Add additional comments below)
- Delete. I have thought about this for some time, and cannot fathom how it can be useful. In any case, a link to the userbox in "What links here" should provide adequate data for whatever it is that the category is trying to accomplish. Horologium t-c 17:43, 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: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]
- Delete per nom. BTW, when you try to edit just this section, it tells me it is protected, but I can edit the full July 10 section. --Bduke 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created this seperate category, to use the second template. I often use these categories for finding admin candidates. It is used by a userbox, so I suggest if this category is deleted the userboxes are as well. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than deleting the userboxes, we can just edit them so that they continue to categorise users who use them, but categorise them in Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. Irrespective of the decision here, it may be a good idea to delete the userboxes (or, even better, redirect them to a template like ((User wikipedia/Administrator someday))). The reason is that, and you are probably aware of this if you have nominated admin candidates, a perceived lack of confidence in self-nominating is likely to garner some opposition at RfA (as it is viewed to transfer over to the candidate's ability to deal with trolls and vandals). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. The userbox alone is sufficient to express the sentiment, but they should definitely be listed under Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, which argues against deletion. Horologium t-c 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Even without all the good reasons, there's no reason for two categories where one will do the job. Shalom Hello 05:13, 12 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]
- Keep -- you know, I honestly think this will be useful. The "disorder" is a humorous term for having a good idea, but not knowing where to put it. It also mentions having specific tidbits of information on your user pages about your idea. I think this could definitely be used to work together on those ideas. --Haemo 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be cynical, but many "good ideas" are probably not as good as they initially seem (the same applies to me, so I'm not trying to be an arrogant, elitist snob). ;) I don't know that getting together a group of user who "don't-know-where-to-put-it" will have much positive effect, especially since there are plenty of ways to find out where to put something (by clicking the "About Wikipedia" and "Community portal" links on the left-hand side, posting a question on virtually any Wikipedia talk page, asking another editor, and so on). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep as aboveFrank Anchor 02:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Valid use of category.--WaltCip 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while a useful description of an editor, there has been exactly zero reasons given which demonstrate why this should be a category. I suspect this is because there are no such reasons, as I can't see why anyone would need to find an editor who doesn't know where things go. N.B. I do appreciate the humour; that has nothing to do with my favouring deletion in this case. BigNate37(T) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and BigNate37. As a side note, am I the only one who finds the name of the category to be unintentionally hilarious in a sexual context? Horologium t-c 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if not WP:NPOV, then comment. (Note:naïve user. I sure hope that doesn't mess up my vote) It may be small, but it might grow soon. And if you delete this category, then this will be the 4th time that that something I have created has been deleted. The category could be used to help other Wikipedians get "cured" from this disease, and if that doesn't work than be able to track them so you or others can organize their thoughts. It is also humorous. And it has absolutely nothing to do with sex. If the category must be deleted, then people could track them by using the "what links here" link while having the userbox open. If I think of anything else, I will list it later as a comment. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I also have a subpage of the essay for the putting of info scraps that currently is not linked to by anything. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "WP:NOT#SOCIALNET: a foundation for effective collaboration" cited in the nomination addresses user pages being used as personal web pages, not categories. "Deletion" requires a reason as to why this should not be a category. Putting this category under Category:Wikipedians by mental condition was offensive so I revised it's category to Category:Wikipedia humor -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though true that WP:NOT#SOCIALNET only directly addresses user pages, I do not think it's a far stretch to argue that the same principle applies to user categories as their sole purpose is to contain user pages. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:33, 12 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".
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete -- Might as well be "Wikipedians with internet access". qwe 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete-gah. Why do people create all-inclusive categories like this? Horologium t-c 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - but I might consider a depopulation and a rename to Category:Wikipedians who don't sign their posts.--WaltCip 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - All Wikipedians should sign their posts. I mean, it's a guideline. --Haemo 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if not Speedy Delete per nomFrank Anchor 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete now, a Category:Wikipedians who don't sign their posts would be interesting, but for totally different reasons. No collaborative potential whatsoever, but no potential for a social net either... :) --Ramdrake 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think that Category:Wikipedians who don't sign their posts would be interesting. In theory it might help other users to identify users who are not following that particular wikipedia convention (signing your posts). Not sure about the implications of users adding others to user categories (is it bad manners? will users just delete themselves from the category again?). Maybe it should be called Category:Wikipedians who have been known not to sign their posts? DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 04:57, 16 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 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))
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or merge - rename to Category:Wikipedians from the Åland Islands, my guess is that this is a case of broken English. Failing that, it should be merged into Category:Wikipedians in Finland which it should be a subcat of anyway. I'm relunctant to mess with a project's ways to foster collaboration; even as small a project as this one.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge is probably not appropriate since "coming from" does not imply "currently in". As for your second point, I doubt that this is a project's way to foster collaboration: current residence, not place of birth/origin, is a basis for collaboration. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The related WikiProject only has four members, one of whom has not edited since early April (only four days in total), and one (the founder of the group) who cannot edit under the username he joined the group under; his new name is not listed. There are a total of 35 links to the WikiProject banner, and not all of them are talk pages. Since the category is unpopulated, it should go away. If one of the 26,000 in the Åland Islands feels the need to join a category, they can create Category:Wikipedians in Åland Islands as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by location, probably several levels down. Additionally, reading the entry on Åland Islands leads me to believe that sticking them into Finland would not be appreciated, due to autonomy issues. Horologium t-c 18:02, 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 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until we have more specific categories for the different wikias--which would facilitate editing considerably.DGG (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikia is the epitome of a social-networking site/free web hosting service. Create interest groups on Wikipedia if there is sufficient interest, but whether or not topics are discussed on Wikia is totally irrelevant to writing an Encyclopedia. Yes, they are operated by the same umbrella group, but the separation is both financial and objective-based. Horologium t-c 14:26, 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 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.
- Delete Kaunas, Klaipėda, Malmö, Riga, Stockholm as empty except for userboxen. Rename the rest as per nom. Would not be opposed to recreation of cats (with correct names) if users join cats, but "preemptive" userboxen are a bit pointless. Horologium t-c 15:46, 9 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 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - knowing what state someone lives in is only weakly useful for collaboration. A derivative category, with no distinguishing useful features is not helpful. --Haemo 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ignoring the eye-watering ugliness of the grammatical massacre in the name, the category is a "not" category, as noted by the nom. It looks like a userbox cat that was very poorly implemented. Horologium t-c 18:22, 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 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]
- Comment This was just retained, as per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music. I may share agreement with you, but the community did not agree. Horologium t-c 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep already decided in previous debate Frank Anchor 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in video game music. I listen to video game music every time I play a video game; I've no interest in the music itself. The kind of collaborative merit they spoke about in the last discussion exists among users who are interested in the topic. BigNate37(T) 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above so we can finally stop these debates. --- RockMFR 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the fact this was opened only four days after the last debate closed, I am going to notify everyone who contributed to the last debate that another one is going on. BigNate37(T) 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as keep (rename optional). Consensus may change, but consensus doesn't change that fast.--Ramdrake 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy close wouldn't facilitate acquiring consensus to rename... bearing in mind the rename was my idea, so I'm biased. BigNate37(T) 13:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, rechallenging the category after such a short span of time seems like an "asking the other parent" nomination, which violates the spirit of Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obvious potential when working on such articles.DGG (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A broad umbrella category allowing collaboration on hundreds of articles.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This time I agree with User:BigNate37 as it seems many editors want to be classified under this or a slightly different associated category. --Bhadani (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this category doesn't point in any manner to myspace, rather than that it provides a list for people that contribute for video game articles. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this category serves absolutely no collaborative potential whatsoever, regardless of what the other debate said. ^demon[omg plz] 19:10, 11 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]
- Delete. Despite the fact that it hasn't been that long since the last discussion, my reasons for deletion still stand: Wikipedia is not a social network, and any collaborative value this could possibly have is trumped by WP:CVG. --Coredesat 07:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Coredesat. -- Jelly Soup 13:29, 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.
- 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]
- Delete - Collaboration would be more efficient though the single article's talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep recent category, hasn't been time to be populated, and meets the "interested in" criterion, thus best potential for encyclopaedic collaboration.--Ramdrake 13:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as Category:Wikipedians interested in military aircraft as a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in aviation, and merge in any other military aircraft interest categories (the only one that currently exists in the F-16 article listed below). Categories based on specific aircraft are too narrow, but for military aircraft in general, one can easily see sufficient interest for collaborative efforts. Keeping this category and its sibling below will lead to a proliferation of small interest groups for specific aircraft. What about F-14, F-22, C-130, B-2, ad nauseum? Horologium t-c 13:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in military aircraft per Horologium. Categories should not be overly specific as to apply to only one article (as is the case here) or overly general (e.g., Wikipedians interested in things that can fly). "Military aircraft" is a subject area that is sufficiently broad, yet clearly defined. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 13 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]
- Keep recent category, hasn't been time to be populated, and meets the "interested in" criterion, thus best potential for encyclopaedic collaboration.--Ramdrake 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into new cat Category:Wikipedians interested in military aircraft for the reasons cited in F4 Phantom discussion above. Horologium t-c 13:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in military aircraft per Horologium. Categories should not be overly specific as to apply to only one article (as is the case here) or overly general (e.g., Wikipedians interested in things that can fly). "Military aircraft" is a subject area that is sufficiently broad, yet clearly defined. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 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.
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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - basically empty; a proper cat would be as above. --Haemo 08:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and Haemo. Horologium t-c 15:41, 9 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 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- yeah, and probably 90% of the male population on the internet too. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom ROGER TALK 09:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Rename as Category:Wikipedians interested in Pornography, as a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by interest. This is the subject of a WikiProject, so there is not a burning need for the category. FWIW, this cat's parent cat has been nominated for deletion and might close before this one; this might be gone before the requisite discussion time has elapsed. Horologium t-c 11:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter name may be misinterpreted.--WaltCip 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean. Can you clarify that? Horologium t-c 15:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "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]
- Well, I was just using the standard nomenclature used by all of the other Category:Wikipedians by interest subcats. None of the other 88 categories particularly imply an interest in collaboration. Why should this be different? (Not intended to be snarky, just honest.) Horologium t-c 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless you want to make Category:Wikipedians with a penis. Bulldog123 00:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That category would unfortunately be terribly abused.--WaltCip 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's too broad. How about Category:Wikipedians with penises over 8 inches? :) --- RockMFR 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That category would have issues with WP:V, don't you think? (snicker) Horologium t-c 17:21, 9 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]
- Merge per nom. No need for the seperate terminology. Kolindigo 00:35, 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 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]
- Merge as per nom. Entirely reasonable, no reason to oppose. Horologium t-c 15:38, 9 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: donate your spare userpage bits and help save a userbox! Ones are in especially short supply right now, but we need zeroes too! See WP:UBX for more information and to donate. With every donation, free membership in this swell category is guaranteed (limited time only; while category lasts). BigNate37(T) 07:48, 9 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 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as empty category. A userbox should not be included as population. Horologium t-c 15:36, 9 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 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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ROGER TALK 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, and argument on linked talk page. This is not a category that is relevant, as I would imagine that a super-majority of people who have contributed to film or acting articles on Wikipedia have used IMDB at one time or another. Horologium t-c 15:35, 9 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: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.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no link in the category description; there is an article entitled Home movies, but any collaboration on the subject can be accomplished on the article's talk page. Horologium t-c 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - same old faces deleting categories for very weak reasons. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd like to point out, partly as a warning against using it, a flawed argument in the nomination. "...having an interest in making movies is not the same as having an interest in editing articles about filmmaking." Well, last I checked I didn't see any categories named "Wikipedians interested in editing articles about music/math/haiku/etc". It's assumed that many Wikipedia editors actually edit in their areas of real-life interest. BigNate37(T) 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your evaluation. You are correct that "interested in editing articles about" is not used, but I believe that was the intent of the "interested in" phrasing (I realise it's often not used that way). However, doing something does not necessarily imply an interest in it (much less an interest in editing articles about it). I swim, but do not have an interest in swimming (nor in editing articles related to swimming). I type, but do not have an interest in typing (nor in editing articles related to typing). In order for me to believe that there is a likely connection between performing an activity, having an interest in that activity, and/or editing articles related to that activity, there must be something else, such as professional specialisation or an explicit statement of interest (via, for instance, a userbox stating, "This user is interested in ..."). These are, of course, my personal criteria; others' may be more or less demanding. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on the activity. I type as well, and am not terribly interested in it; however I also play baseball and am very interested in it. Doing and liking are much more closely related in recreational activities, of which this is arguably one. BigNate37(T) 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that the activity itself is important, but I do not agree that home movie making is an activity where involvement implies interest (especially encyclopedically-relevant interest). As for the "baseball" example, I can provide recreational counterexamples: I swim relatively frequently, but have no interest in swimming. I do not play football (soccer), but have an interest in it. I play tennis and have an interest in it. Please note that my interests in football and tennis are not encyclopedically-relevant; that is, they don't compel me to edit articles related to those subjects. ... Maybe I'm just very strange.
;) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While the above conversation is very interesting, it doesn't change the fact that this category falls under WP:MYSPACE.
- 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:Punk 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 merge. After Midnight 0001 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Punk Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who listen to punk
- Nominator's rationale: The two categories are essentially redundant. However, whereas a weak argument for collaborative potential could be made for the second, the title of the first implies a social networking purpose that goes against current policy. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete. Generally, it can be assumed that people who identify as Punks will listen to Punk Music (the obverse is not nearly as likely to be true), the categories are dissimilar enough to raise questions. I can support either, but agree with the nom that the one category is not appropriate. Horologium t-c 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
, not merge or Merge. People who listen to punk music are not necessarily punks themselves. qwe 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which is why the merge is proposed as Punks merged into punk music, not the other way around. Horologium t-c 09:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, I misread. qwe 15:41, 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 New York State-related topics
- 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 13:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians interested in New York State-related topics to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York
- Nominator's rationale: The two categories are essentially redundant, except that the former includes only one user and has a longer title. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. Horologium t-c 02:37, 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 against Simplified Chinese
- 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 13:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This is a category for users "who think that the Communist Party of China ruined the beauty of Chinese characters through vandalistic simplification of them". Thus, it is a divisive advocacy category that holds no potential for constructive encyclopedic collaboration.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I feel a bit uncomfortable about saying per nom, but... per nom!--WaltCip 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. When the rationale is well-written, there should be no issue with saying "per nom". This certainly qualifies, as do most nominations from the nominator of this article. Horologium t-c 15:24, 9 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 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 no consensus. Can't do a reverse merge since the other category wasn't tagged. Suggest that reverse merge be renominated or that this category be nominated for deletion again shortly with other members of Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. After Midnight 0001 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category merely expresses a personal mental condition, and neither an expertise in the subject area or any propensity for editing these articles at all. Category:WikiProject Psychology participants would be much better place to start than people merely afflicted with the disorder. With no potential for collaboration, this seems to have little use other than social networking. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into similar Category:Wikipedians with Social Anxiety Disorder. Yes, I am aware that Social Anxiety Disorder is a category in DSM-IV and the other is not, but we don't need both categories, and the the Disorder one is more specific. Horologium t-c 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After looking more at the size of each cat, and more closely at the articles to which each cat is linked, I think that the reverse of my previous suggestion might be more appropriate. Social Anxiety Disorder redirects to Social Anxiety (although the article is almost totally about the disorder rather than the more generalized term), and there are only 11 people in the Disorder cat, while there are 149 in the general cat. My personal preference would be to go with my original suggestion, and rename the linked article as Social Anxiety Disorder; however, a proposal to change the name of the article last year never seemed to establish a consensus (see Talk:Social anxiety). Horologium t-c 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Relisted from July 2. 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 are a member of WikiProject Abkhazia
- 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:WikiProject Abkhazia members. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wikipedians who are a member of WikiProject Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rename to Category:WikiProject Abkhazia members, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- Prove It (talk) 00:47, 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.
July 7
Category:Wikipedians in their 780s
- 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 nonsense and empty. ^demon[omg plz] 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. This kind of stuff should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Part of the problem is that Template:User age creates the category. Could some one who knows about coding templates add code to restrict the categories to sensible ages, and thus prevent people adding this to their user page with idiotic ages from creating an idiotic category? --Bduke 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. qwe 00:19, 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 dislike George W. Bush
- 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 and protect against recreation. I'm closing this early as the category is empty and the creator (along with everyone else) supports deletion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another one that should probably be speedied. "Not" category, potentially divisive. Been deleted several times before, but It's debatable if it meets any speedy criteria (since there has never been a UCFD on it). I won't complain if someone else speedies, however. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt to prevent recreation. This cat will continue to be created until it's protected. Categories like this will probably need to be salted for any U.S. president; the rest of the world tends to be a bit less likely to create nonsense like this. Horologium t-c 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Discount any keep vote. This is a "not" category. If you have any qualms about the President, mayhap you could become a politician yourself. I suggest Profiles in Courage to get you started.--WaltCip 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Salt, salt and salt. Rockpocket 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - divisive category, with no collaborative merit. --Haemo 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have a sense of humour dudes! "It is not the idea as such which the censor attacks, whether it be heresy or radicalism or obscenity. He attacks the circulation of the idea among the classes which in his judgment are not to be trusted with the idea. -- Walter Lippman, 'The Nature of the Battle Over Censorship', in Men of Destiny, p. 98" MRM 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- If we didn't laugh, we'd cry ;-) MRM 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Far too large a group to have collaborative merit. ROGER TALK 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggestion - how about renaming to Category: Wikipedians who will feel safer when the President of the USA changes? Didn't think so, but worth a try. Pretty sure this'll be deleted, but the only reason so far for deletion that may sway even my opinion is Roger's ;-) Toodle-pip. MRM 09:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Divisive. ElinorD (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If we are to delete it, I would suggest to prevent recreation of this for any living person as it can be construed as inappropriate under WP:BLP (in other words, why include the U.S. presidents and no one else? What makes them special?).--Ramdrake 11:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree, but I am not aware of such categories being created against, for example, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, or Stephen Harper (or Stockwell Day or Preston Manning, two more high profile Canadians who have inspired strong disagreement). Even Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, and Ariel Sharon haven't inspired such categories, and they are not widely appreciated outside of their home countries. When I originally made the statement, I mistakenly assumed that it was a creation of a disgrnetled American, not a Scotsman, and concluded that the rest of the world was more mature than Americans in this respect (a mistake I will not make again). I would support a similar salting for any living person, as per your proposal. Horologium t-c 13:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, we're all terrified of him, but this isn't the forum for saying why.MRM 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, the good old Liberale Argument #3: "Everybody knows that this is true/false"; "everybody likes/dislikes this".--WaltCip 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Were I still for keep, that'd annoy me, but I'm not, so it doesn't. Perhaps I should have put "everyone I know and who I have discussed it with" in parenthesis after "we're all"? But that's a bit wordy. Nevermind. I've been convinced by the idea of not using such a thing for someone who is still alive, and on reflection amn't really sure it'd be of much use for someone who's dead either. BTW, "Liberal" isn't an insult in Europe. MRM 19:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt also highly recommend that the WP:BLP policy be modified to include a ban on the creation of such opposition categories for any living persons, in the interest of fairness to all notable personalities.--Ramdrake 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure what salt means, but I've been convinced this isn't the place for this. I still think we need a small sense of humour though ;-) MRM 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Salt means to fully protect the page so that it can't be recreated.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The term derives from "salting the earth" in case the relation between protection from recreation and sodium chloride isn't fully clear. -Severa (!!!) 22:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Actually hinders collaboration by creating an "us vs them" atmosphere. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the person who recreated the category this time, perhaps we should go for speedy as no one wants to keep it? (Me included). In favour of salting.MRM 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt I do not see this category having any collaborative application, unless it were to be used to recruit like-minded editors, which, of course, would be counter to the spirit of WP:NPOV. Wikipedians are free to express their disfavour of the Bush administration on their userpage but this perspective should not influence how they contribute to the encyclopedia. -Severa (!!!) 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as soon as possible, that is all I need to say. -PatPeter 23:13, 9 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 hate being played like a sucker
- 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 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless, will not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize users in to this. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. qwe 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bizarre, pointless category. Horologium t-c 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Offensive to people who do like being played like a sucker. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely! Good point, well made! ROGER TALK 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Ben1283 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This statement is flawed because it could be used for any article. Using your logic, a category like 'Category:Wikipedians interested in music could be considered offensive to someone who does not like music. I do support deletion (see below) but your reasoning is very flawed < Bobcats483 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe Tariqabjotu was being a bit sarcastic. Do you know anyone who wants to be played like a sucker? Horologium t-c 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It distinguishes users that do not want to be played like a suckerFrank Anchor 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ROGER TALK 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think this is everyone. --Haemo 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this page, you can delete it I didn't realize how pointless it was when I did make itBen1283 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD:G7.--WaltCip 04:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a very distinguishing quality to not want to be played like a sucker. EhaEha07
- Above user has few edits to Wikipedia, let alone UCFD.--WaltCip 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm, Joke and Humor. Review these words please. -- Jelly Soup 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if this is kept (and I'm not suggesting it ought to be), it should be renamed to the grammatically correct Category:Wikipedians who hate being played like suckers. Again, if this is kept, would be be implicitly saying there should be a Category:Wikipedians who enjoy being played like suckers? BigNate37(T) 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per CSD:G7 < Bobcats483 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is important becuase this catigory would grow, every one does not want to be played like a sucker. Give it some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderson57 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 July 2007
- BINGO - You just cited the very reason why it should be deleted: "every one does not want to be played like a sucker". You've just learned Rule #1 in User Categories: All-inclusive categories are pointless! Now with that in mind, study the archives, O Once and Future Erudite of Wikipedia.--WaltCip 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Useless category, 'not' category, doesn't support collaboration. -- Jelly Soup 18:45, 12 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 survived Philmont
- 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. Rename not justified as recent precedent has been towards deleting "visited" categories. After Midnight 0001 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dmcdevit is right about a lack of collaborative purposes. ^demon[omg plz] 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although this has more users than the following cat, it's still not something that is useful for collaboration. The userbox is adequate to note the experience. Horologium t-c 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The mere fact that a number of Wikipedians feel it is meaningful to list themselves this way is its own justification. Non-encyc pages should be almost purely unregulated; encyc pages should be tightly controlled. Any Delete votes on this page are from people trying to pass edicts in the wrong space. JDG 22:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since there are quite a few articles in Category:Philmont Scout Ranch, this category presumably is a basis for collaboration. --Bduke 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per JDG and Bduke.Rlevse 12:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as Wikipedia is a community, so this tag is a community-building one, as much as any sports-team fan or anime otaku. Chris 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all the above keeps.Sumoeagle179 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who have visited Philmont. - Presidentman 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who have visited Philmont. --evrik (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Time for this to be closed as Keep. JDG 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per above. Reconsider deletion if category-size and quality stagnates. --Johnnyw talk 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Relisted on 7 July 2007. Add additional comments below.)
- Delete or Rename, NOT STRAIGHT KEEP per the above arguments, including the Keeps, which are built on terms of WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, as well as JDG's automated "stop passing edicts" responses to XFDs.--WaltCip 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WaltCip. If the article is not deleted, it needs to be renamed. Horologium t-c 19:48, 7 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 Uncyclopedia
- 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 04:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a (primarily or wholly userbox-populated) category for editors who use Uncyclopedia. The category has little or no encyclopedic merit as merely using a website does not imply the ability or interest to contribute encyclopedic content about it. Any potential collaborative merit is restricted to one article – Uncyclopedia – so any coordination is better suited for that article's talk page. Finally, the nature of Uncyclopedia is inherently antithetical to that of Wikipedia and I do not think we need a category to glorify "proud contributor[s] to Uncyclopedia" (copied from the userbox).
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep — not normally in favour of these type of categories, but the common grounds (and differences) between these two projects is interesting, and users who use both should be identifiable, if they choose to, of course — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Various userboxes makes them identifiable. The commonalities and differences between the two projects may or may not be interesting, but how is this category useful in fostering collaboration on any articles? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per superbfc. SalaSkan 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --MichaelLinnear 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Can't really delete this without appearing snobby. MRM 09:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument could be used to keep Category:Wikipedians who are against aristocracy.--WaltCip 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um, no. Snobby because it looks like Wikipedia is saying it is more worthy than uncyclopedia; which is a dangerous route to head down. I think it's a useful category because many users, fed up with what's happening on any article, especially if there's an edit war, may head to uncyclopedia to let off steam. The category may not be good for collaborative purposes, but I think it's invaluable to show that a specific user does that (maybe a user box with no category attached is better? Like the one where people say they dislike Britney Spears?) and that they can have a sense of humour about what they write. Particularly where there is an overlap in the articles they edit. I could even see an argument for treating uncyclopedia articles like other language versions and putting a link beside those, but I doubt there'd be very much support.MRM 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read the little box at the top of the page; it clearly says that userboxes are not removed as a result of category deletion. The userbox will be retained; we're only talking about nuking the category. Same thing with your anti-Bush thing; If you had created a userbox, it would have remained even as the cat was nuked; nobody here will try to nuke a userbox if you decide to create one. I may disagree with it, but I disagree with a lot of userboxes; I've never tried to delete one before. Userboxes stay on userpages; categories spill out into the rest of Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 22:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks, you're very helpful. :) In that case, I'll strike the strong bit, but something does make me want to keep this one, terrible argument, but I don't know what it is ;-) Is there a list of userboxes anywhere like the list of user-categories (probably staring me in the face, but I've not managed to find one). MRM 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- There is also User:UBX. Most userboxes that I've seen are linked to from a subpage of one or the other (or both) of those userbox directories. --Black Falcon (Talk) 23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Black Falcon's reasoning in the nomination and his follow up are sound. Horologium t-c 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no collaborative purpose can be found in this category. AW 09:41, 9 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 and can work in both English and Metric units
- 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 04:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a (primarily or wholly userbox-populated) category for editors "who are comfortable in working both English and metric and like working in both of them". I do not think that this category provides any collaborative merit. Although the ability to work in both English and SI units is potentially useful when working on articles, conversion is not something that requires collaboration or assistance. There are many websites (like this one) that offer conversions, which can also be performed with a calculator.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Many userbox templates also automatically perform the conversions, which eliminates the need to go off-site. Horologium t-c 16:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - like and can work? How does "liking" both English and Metric units matter in the least? At the very minimum this would need a rename. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - do we need "Wikipedians capable of basic conversions" too? --Haemo 08:50, 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 play air guitar
- 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) 05:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No collaborative merit. qwe 05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pointless category. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0526 (UTC)
- Delete Fun but fatuous. ROGER TALK 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another userbox with an unneeded category appended to it. Horologium t-c 15:39, 7 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:UCC 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 speedy delete as empty. VegaDark (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting this cat, an empty subcat of Category:United Church of Christ Wikipedians.
- Nominator's rationale: It appears that this subcat was created to display a userbox for the parent cat, which I have copied over. There are no members to this category (users or templates), and the only link to it is from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16, which was a proposal to rename a bunch of Religion usercats; this one didn't get done. Since it is not being used by anybody, it should be totally uncontroversial. Horologium t-c 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion No point in keeping an empty cat around. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0529 (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:Wikipedian SCUBA divers
- 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 deleted by someone else already. VegaDark (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deletion: Category:Wikipedian SCUBA divers
- Rationale: Population zero, I was the creator a few years ago, but all divers seem to be in Category:Wikipedians who scuba dive, where I also moved. Uncontroversial, simple overlap and empty. NikoSilver 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DB-Author - can't argue with that. --Haemo 10:01, 3 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 6
Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo 64 games
- 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, who present a more substantiated argument when versed with Wikipedia policy and current practice. Daniel 10:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too specific to be collaborative. Would be better served with a WikiProject.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are over 500 WPedians in this category, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use boxes of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. DGG 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one claimed it was divisive. The argument is that they are directed towards social networking, not encyclopedia-building. You seem to be saying that the reason for it inclusion is just because a lot of users use it, regardless of merit. You can disparage deletion discussions as "paternalism" all you want, but the suggestion seems to be that categories with many users in them can never be deleted, even with a nomination at the relevant forum, which strikes me as illogical. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would require a stronger reason than any put forth to revoke what they choose to do, and I'd want to see what arguments the users could raise. I doubt more than a very few know of these discussions. "Not encyclopedic" and "no useful purpose" are rather flexible and unspecific arguments & can be applied to anything disliked. I'd like to see for each category, with individual arguments, whether any harm could actually be shown, and what benefits could be found--but not at the rate of 50 per day, but with time enough to discuss each one. DGG 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is alleging that something has to "do harm" to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, simply being inappropriate is enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, and just because you consider social networking harmless, does not mean we should accept excessive, wasteful concern for networking instead of the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 06:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I do not see any reason how this creates a social network and how it serves no collaborative purpose. Each of these users could very easily contribute towards WP:NINTENDO, and as for the social networking, it's no more Myspacey as the userbox. Have these 500 users created the N64 cabal all of a sudden? Have they all of a sudden started to talk about how Super Smash Bros. is the greatest game on Earth? If they needed help verifying information on that article, could they ask someone else in this category? I think the answers are apparent in all these questions. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, those are some nice strawmen, but no one has really uggested any of the wild accusations you imply. It's interesting that you mention WP:NINTENDO, because if I were looking for assistance, I'd ask someone in Category:WikiProject_Nintendo_members. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no collaborative merit. --After Midnight 0001 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe this can help with collaboration on our many N64 game articles. --- RockMFR 22:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Category:WikiProject_Nintendo_members groups people willing to contribute to Nintendo articles more effectively. Redundant and prime for abuse. MER-C 09:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this possibly abusive? --- RockMFR 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - literally billions of people do, or have done this. It is far too general, and does not imply any level of interest in writing articles about it. No collaborative merit. --Haemo 09:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Billions of people play Nintendo 64? That's completely wrong. --- RockMFR 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that at some point in time, at least 1 billion people have played a Nintendo 64. Maybe not all at once, but given its popularity and ubiquity, I'd say it's a fair bet. --Haemo 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No really, that's complete crap. However, how does the number of people who have played it have anything to do with this category? --- RockMFR 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The generality of a category of action reduces the ability of people to collaborate on it. Catgeory:Wikipedians who use Windows or Category:Wikipedias who drive cars would be so broad as to be entirely useless for any encyclopedic purpose. --Haemo 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- do you then accept the appropriateness of the possible categories Catgeory:Wikipedians who do not use Windows Category:Wikipedias who do not drive cars? (incidentally, have you any data for your assumption that almost all WPedians have played these games?) DGG 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that non sequitur have to do with this discussion at all? Surely just because a category is argues to be unnecessary because of broadness does not mean that its opposite must be necessary. Catgeory:Wikipedians who do not use Windows is an absurd category no matter how many people could fit in it, as there is no potential for anything useful to come out of it. This is an encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have lots of categories for game systems, so there's no reason to delete this one.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Relisted on 7 July 2007. Add additional comments below.)
- Strong keep. The "there's a wiki project for this" arguement is flawed because, frankly, I'm able to do way more than I'm going to pretend to commit to. Have I joined the project to offer unsolicited help? No. Will I be happy to help with my physical resources including manuals and box scans if asked politely? Of course. I'm available in many more categories than I would think to join wikiprojects for, and I shudder to see all the marginal user categories gone with bloated and mostly inactive membership for wikiprojects in their stead. BigNate37(T) 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two of the deletion arguments are contradictory: either it is too general or too specific. The category is collaborative, as it does give the knowledge that the Wikipedian plays video games for the Nintendo 64.Connell66 09:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: I play N64 games too, doesn't mean I need to tell everybody on Wikipedia who largely don't care. Nor does it mean I wish to collaborate on them, just because I play them. MySpace is that way, as we're not a social networking site. ^demon[omg plz] 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: categories are opt-in, so if you personally prefer not to collaborate on it, don't join the category. And yes, most people don't care, it's the ones that do that will use the category to their advantage. Personal preference and generalizations do not overrule common sense. BigNate37(T) 19:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still doesn't say how it has collaborative potential. ^demon[omg plz] 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe my comment above, from 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC), says that. BigNate37(T) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep It distinguishes a large group of people, as over 500 are in this category. It is not MySpaceish. It is a group of people who have a common interest, which is what a user category should beFrank Anchor 20:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User categories, like all categories on Wikipeida, are meant to further collaboration. 'Having a common interest' and 'collaborating on a subject' are two very different thing. -- Jelly Soup 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MYSPACE. -- Jelly Soup 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what at WP:MYSPACE, exactly? This doesn't cause wikipedia pages to be used as personal webpages or blogs, it doesn't cause wikipedia to be used for file storage, it doesn't facilitate dating (AFAIK :P), and it doesn't serve as a memorial to the deceased... please expand on why you think the fact that Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site pertains here. BigNate37(T) 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category isn't facilitating collaboration, then what is it doing? How about this: I've looked through the contribution history of fifty random people in the category and only found a handful that have edited anything related to the N64, most of which was some time ago and isolated. If you can prove that collaboration is actually taking place due to this category, I'll renege. -- Jelly Soup 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So then you're not willing to back up your deletion argument? Great, I can cite policy without providing adequate rationale too, but it doesn't establish anything here. As far as usefulness, I've already explained the potential for use; the fact I haven't been asked to contribute anything says either that people aren't leveraging the category like they could be, or its big enough that most editors never get asked for help. Even marginal usefulness is worth keeping in light of the terrible deletion arguments here. Do you honestly think we're organizing N64 parties with this category or something? BigNate37(T) 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I did back up my argument. You're showing proof of potential and marginal usefulness, but you aren't showing proof of any actual usefulness. Are you not willing to prove that any actual collaboration is taking place? -- Jelly Soup 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm in the category and I've done work at GoldenEye 007. Exactly what kind of proof do you want, history of editors remarking how they couldn't have found N64 articles to edit if not for the category? I'm still not sure why you are referring to WP:NOT#MYSPACE, you never explained how it applies here. At any rate, it seems you think the wiki is better without a way to find editors involved with the N64, whereas I see no harm and I see potential good from it. To me, the potential for deterring hundreds of users is not worth deleting a category that does no harm. BigNate37(T) 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if there is no collaboration going on, all we are left with is a group of people saying 'I like N64, lol!' which is the essence of social networking. While it's not doing any harm, it's not doing any good either. If editors want to find other editors to work with on N64 related articles, then they should hit up the talk page on WP:NINTENDO, which is kinda why we have the project to begin with. One last time, can you show that any collaboration of any kind has taken place due to this category? So far you've only presented one case (yourself). -- Jelly Soup 18:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jelly Soup, why are you voting twice, contradicting yourself to boot? Were you hacked?--Ramdrake 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jelly Soup's comment above is a response to Frank Anchor. I am indenting it so that it is clearer. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Falcon, I thought it was indented properly. Ramdrake, how am I contradicting myself? I pointed out that difference between saying 'Hey, I like this!' and 'Hey, I like this, let me help you improve it!'. The later isn't happening. -- Jelly Soup 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not contradicting yourself. I was mistaken as I was reading somebody else's comment as yours because of an indenting problem, thus my striking out the comment.--Ramdrake 18:38, 14 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 political organization
- 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. Pragmatically, I see this as the only option as the category was depopulated a while ago and no one has yet repopulated it. I am assuming that some reorganization has already occurred. After Midnight 0001 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a social network and this doesn't serve any real purpose in building the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a users personal opinion towards any organization does not comment on the validity (or NPOV) of their contributions.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can see no useful purpose for collaboritive editing or social. FloNight 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC) ].[reply]
- Keep there are many WPedians in this and the included categories, all of whom apparently find it appropriate. This is not divisive. I do not support removing any widely used category on the vague grounds of not social network or no useful purpose. In grouping the contained categories together it has a function, like categorization in general. The thought that 3 or 4 people here can tell the general group what to do in circumstances like this is just paternalism. I don't use categories of this sort, but i don't see why I should interfere with those who do unless there is a good reason. WP is not myspace, but there are distinct social aspects in WP; that isn't why people ought to be joining primarily, but it is a factor--we can & should call this a community. There are better things to do than trying to delete inoffensive categoriesDGG 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a variation on Wikipedians by organization, which does allow for collaboration.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I and many people in the community believe that such categorizations are valuable for the Wikipedia community. Allowing people to feel at home on Wikipedia helps to keep people here and that is clearly important to our collaborative goal of improving the encyclopedia. Owen 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's heavily populated and no good reason has been given for deleting it. ROGER TALK 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, wikipedians of the same group may know more about each other through these cats and collaborate in writing articles. AW 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorising users by political organisation is questionable to begin with as it (1) can be divisive and (2) smacks of social networking. However, regardless of one's opinion on the matter, the fact is that this category is empty. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(relisted on 7 July 2007. add additional comments below.)
- Keep I see no problem with anyone creating and using categories about their different identities, as long as they are not hurtful, hateful or incendiary in nature. This may not be myspace, but that doesn't mean we all have to be antisocial! WP:NOT is very specific about the cases that do not belong. I don't think NOT should be extended any further. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of opportunities to be social that involve improving the encyclopedia: participating in policy or deletion discussions (like now), collaborating on talk pages, organising and managing WikiProjects, and so on. Categories by political organisation are generally divisive and do little or nothing to help the project. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete empty cat. SalaSkan 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, perfectly viable. Wikipedia is not paper. GreenJoe 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, per Sam. Also, a member of a political organization is likely to know something about it, no? Therefore, it is useful, in however minor a fashion, for collaboration purposes. If it has any utility at all in that matter--and it does--it not only should be retained, it must be retained. Furthermore, as for the cat being empty 1. I looked at it a while ago and I don't remember it being empty and 2. Even if it was, it could be fairly easily populated. Lockesdonkey 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote: "a member of a political organization is likely to know something about it, no?" Perhaps, but such first-hand knowledge is inadmissible as it is not verifiable. Information in articles must be attributed to reliable published works; the postings of Wikipedia editors do not meet the threshold for reliability. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the knowledge is verifiable, not to mention the fact that I was referring to the tendency of intelligent people to research the organizations they join, and will also be able to find information faster on the organization because they would 1. presumably be more familiar with the structure of the organization's publications and resources related to the organization than just any random guy and 2. they probably want to know for themselves. Long story short: if you're in an organization, you research it better. That's of encyclopedic value. Lockesdonkey 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think the overall utility of the category is low, but perhaps it is high enough to pass the low threshold for usefulness of user categories. I also feel that some categories may need to be deleted for divisiveness and the like but am no longer comfortable generalising that to all "by political organization" categories. I have stricken my original recommendation and written a new one below. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Has anybody noticed that the category, originally well-populated, was depopulated during this discussion? I'd like to address 3 arguments that were made here:
- Category can be divisive: no disputes have been reported based on this categorization so far, nor is there any good reason to think there will be. Moreover, this categorization is no more and no less divisive than any categorization where people are part of a single category at a time (e.g.: Wikipedians by religion, Wikipedians by political ideology, both of which were kept).
- If there is sufficient cause to believe this category can induce encyclopaedic collaboration, this should supersede WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to prevent socialization. If the proper encyclopaedia-building tools also promote some degree of socialization, then all the better: it's only building ties within the WP community.
- Members of political organization are likely to be more enclined to participate in articles about political organizations, although there is no guarantees, as with any other category, as WP is a volunteer organization. The argument that the knowledge they can contribute isn't worthy because it isn't a reliable source ignores the fact that these people are likely to be invaluable at sourcing statements (although they cannot be used as sources themselves), just like any professional is likely to be able to contribute statement sourcing on articles relevant to his or her prefoession or field of expertise.--Ramdrake 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And to follow up on #3, people who know the subject matter are readily able to determine the worth of dubious statements. Suppose an anon adds an unsourced statement—do you remove it as wrong, ((fact)) it or leave it be as common knowledge? Sometimes it takes a subject matter expert to make that decision. BigNate37(T) 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in favour of better organisation. Lockesdonkey, Ramdrake (#3), and BigNate37's arguments address the crucial issue of: From whence does claimed collaborative merit for a category come? Though their arguments can be disputed, I do not feel this discussion is the appropriate place for that. Instead, I offer a simple reorganisation of categories. I suggest that we delete this (empty) category, make Category:Wikipedians by political ideology a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians, and then delete the then empty Category:Wikipedians by politics. So, where do categories for membership in political organizations go? Category:Wikipedians by organization, of course. I do not think it is necessary to have two separate categories for grouping editors by organization, especially when one of those is currently empty. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Currently, Category:Wikipedians by political ideology and Category:Wikipedians by political organization being the two extant subcategories Category:Wikipedians by politics, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians does smack of overcategorization. I would agree with BF's suggestion to do away with the middleman that Category:Wikipedians by politics is, and if he means to move Category:Wikipedians by political organization as a sub of Category:Wikipedians by organization, and Category:Wikipedians by political ideology as a sub of Category:Wikipedians, then I do not disagree. Either that, or make Category:Wikipedians by political ideology and Category:Wikipedians by political organization direct subs of Category:Wikipedians. Some reorganization is in order, but I do believe Wikipedia has a use for both Category:Wikipedians by political ideology and Category:Wikipedians by political organization (and I apologize for the repleteness of category names, but I wanted to make sure we both understood the proposal the same way.--Ramdrake 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion was closer to your first one, with one difference. Instead of making Category:Wikipedians by political organization a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by organization, I think we ought to simply delete the category and use Category:Wikipedians by organization for all types of organizations. Category:Wikipedians by political ideology could become a direct subcat of Category:Wikipedians or could be placed under Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. So, in effect, we would get rid of "by politics" and merge "by political organization" with the more general "by organization". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I see with this is that Category:Wikipedians by organization has everything in itm from NGO to paragovernmental all the way to frat houses, it seems. Any categories that were under Category:Wikipedians by political organization would be indeed lost in a "sea of blue" as you put it, but likely in a different way than what you thought... I would suggest Category:Wikipedians by organization be "organized" (pun not intended but welcome)into at least a few main subcats. Political organization might as well be one of them.--Ramdrake 22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to subdividing Category:Wikipedians by organization, but also notice that none of the categories in the "by organization" category seem political. So there does not seem to be a need for the category at this time. By the way, which do you think is a more appropriate parent category for Category:Wikipedians by political ideology ... Category:Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians by philosophy? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question, I'd hazard that Category:Wikipedians by philosophy would be a slightly more accurate parent category.--Ramdrake 00:11, 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 by sexuality
- 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. Child cats will be upmerged so none are orphaned. After Midnight 0001 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No collaborative usefulness. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This nomination apparently does not include any of the subcategories except for the (separately nominated) Category:Gay Wikipedians and Category:Porn Star Wikipedians, as none of the other subcats are tagged. Horologium t-c 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Extremely useful for collaboration. It is helpful to have polemic sexual scales, from instance, Queer Wikipedians versus Gay Wikipedians (a self-identifying Queer Wikipedian will probably be familiar with Queer Cinema, Queer Literature etc whereas a common-or-garden Gay Wikipedian probably won't). ROGER TALK 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this category and all of its subcategories. Observation: Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians was nominated 28 June and deleted 6 July. — Athaenara ✉ 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not quite the same: 90-95% of humans are heterosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't quite see your point here. "90-95%" of the subcategories in this category are not heterosexual. — Athaenara ✉ 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I'll clarify. Heterosexuals don't need a category as they predominate. People with sexual special interests do as they are not easy to identify for collaboration. ROGER TALK 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The "polemic" and "need" (?) arguments for a category by user Roger Davies seem to militate against NPOV policy. — Athaenara ✉ 04:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? Wikipedia policy requires us to present a NPOV in articles; it doesn't require us as individuals to hold one in life. The best way, surely, to express a NPOV in a potentially controversial article is to incorporate and balance a spectrum of divergent views on the subject? ROGER TALK 06:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no problem with anyone creating and using categories about their different identities, as long as they are not hurtful, hateful or incendiary in nature. This may not be myspace, but that doesn't mean we all have to be antisocial! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. It should gear itself solely to that effort, and leave the social networking to MySpace or Facebook. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0617 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would not exist without social networking. All xFDs are social networking. All talk pages are social networking. All meetups are social networking. If people state their interests, that can be used as a resource. If people state their opinions, that can be used to weigh their biases. All these things help the project. Even if there is no obvious benefit, people want to enjoy themselves as they are working on the encyclopedia. Your attitude is akin to having a boss telling their employees not to fraternize around the water cooler! I wouldn't work in such an environment even if I was receiving a good salary. I certainly would never put up with it as a volunteer. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed it is. How will categories by sexuality automatically lead to social networking? ROGER TALK 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation: The subcategories in this category (keep in mind that heterosexual wikipedians were signed off and deleted less than 48 hours ago) now show that only those who are antisexual, asexual, bisexual, gay, interested in the Kinsey scale, LGBT, lesbian, pansexual, polyamorous, porn stars, queer or enjoy pornography belong in any "Wikipedians by sexuality" category. Question: Is anyone looking at this strange situation from the neutral point of view? — Athaenara ✉ 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Certainly. It's just that our neutral points of view differ.ROGER TALK 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly one way to interpret this is that the heterosexual wikipedians were deleted in error. I would have strongly advocated that the category remain. However, I did not even know the category existed, I did not watch that category, and I do not frequent UCfD. I do however watch these categories. This points out a problem with all xFDs. They create absurd situations like this one. Since this xFD does not get broad community input, the decisions here are made by a small group of like-minded deletionists. Those decisions should not be interpreted as community concensus when they are challenged. At that point previous mistakes should be brought to light and hopefully corrected. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The labels of "deletionist" and "inclusionist", which were created to reflect views on articles, do not extend well to categories. I am not a deletionist, yet I supported deleting Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians. Quite frankly, I think the questions of neutrality or bias are irrelevant here. User categories that does not provide a basis for collaboration should not exist. Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians did not aid collaboration, not in small part due to the fact that it was so broad, and was deleted per policy. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I was, as nominator — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Right now, this whole discussion appears to be a somewhat POINTy response to the deletion of Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, with the justification that if one category was deleted, the rest of the cat must also go. The main objection to deleting the entire category appears to be the status of the LGBT categories, which would be eliminated with all of the others under the current proposal. However, all of the LGBT categories are double-categorized under Category:Wikipedians by sexuality and Category:LGBT Wikipedians, both of which are subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. My suggestion is to remove the LGBT cats from Category:Wikipedians by sexuality, move Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale to Category:Wikipedians by interest and then delete Category:Wikipedians by sexuality and the remaining subcategories (and note the UCfD above on Category:Wikipedians who enjoy pornography, which was nominated separately; it might merit a rename and move as well). We have established that some subcats in Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle are justified to be retained; in fact, almost every single one of the lifestyle subcats has been the subject of a UCfD within the past month (Category:Punk Wikipedians is undergoing a discussion right now), and the existing cats survived. Category:Furry Wikipedians (which survived two earlier UCfDs), was speedied, but the deletion was overturned at DRV. Thus, there is a precedent to keep the LGBT categories, which (unlike Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians) appear to have some collaborative potential. This is an example of why over-categorization is a bad thing; categories do not need to be subcats of multiple categories. BTW, I don't think there are any other portals that have had their all of their associated user categories deleted, which is another issue that needs to be considered. Horologium t-c 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete To prevent the gradual move from wikipedia towards myspace. Bulldog123 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete this and the subcats per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. The "Kinsey scale" and LBGT categories have been removed. All that's left are the categories for antisexualism, asexuality, pansexuality, and polyamory. Any collaborative potential for all of them is limited to one article only and none of them imply any ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content. Wikipedia doesn't require sex, so one's "antagonism towards sexuality", lack of "sexual attraction", "potential for ... attraction ... [to] people regardless of their gender identity or biological sex", or "desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship" is not relevant in the category namespace. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - And what's next: Category:Wikipedians by fetish?--WaltCip 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bulldog123. -- Jelly Soup 18:27, 12 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 wikistress level
- 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 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination also includes all subcats: Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 1, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 1a, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 2, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 3, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 4, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 4a, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 5, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 6, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 7, Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level NoPants, and Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level numb.
I offer three reasons for deleting these categories.
- They do not "provid[e] a foundation for effective collaboration". It may be useful to know whether someone is stressed at the moment, but that information is sufficiently conveyed via the image generated through the use of Template:Wstress3d. I can think of no valid reason to look through a category of Wikipedians by stress level.
- They are largely joke categories. Level 1a corresponds to "not wearing any pants", level 4a is accompanied by an image of a beer bottle, level 5 is "run for cover", level 6 is "hospitalised", and so on. A little (or a lot) of fun in userspace is a good thing, but it shouldn't cross over into the category namespace.
- They reflect transient affiliations. Someone who is "just fine" (level 1) now may be "a bit tense" (level 2) in five minutes. Such fleeting affiliations are not suited for and don't require categorisation.
In short, I contend that wikistress levels are fine for userspace, but inappropriate (or, at the least, unnecessary) in the category namespace.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Not much to add to that. Horologium t-c 23:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No one is going to go through these user categories to look for users to collaborate with. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0058 (UTC)
- Delete, per Octane. AW 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Haemo 08:55, 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.
- 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies exists already for collaboration on LGBT topics. No need for a divisive category. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
20 hours, 19 minutes. Exactly 10 hours after the cat was deleted. A little more than I expected, but not too shabby. Horologium t-c 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Extremely useful for collaboration. It is helpful to have polemic sexual scales, from instance, Queer Wikipedians versus Gay Wikipedians (a self-identifying Queer Wikipedian will probably be familiar with Queer Cinema, Queer Literature etc whereas a common-or-garden Gay Wikipedian one probably won't). ROGER TALK 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Collaborating on LGBT topics is not the same as self-identifying as Gay. I see no problem with anyone creating and using categories about their different identities, as long as they are not hurtful, hateful or incendiary in nature. This may not be myspace, but that doesn't mean we all have to be antisocial! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete what will this article accomplish? What articles can it help? Is there a category for Straight Wikipedians? -PatPeter 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I could give the same argument for deleting Category:Wikipedians in the United States; "WP:USA exists already for collaboration on American topics". SalaSkan 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No you couldn't. There isn't an entire country of Homosexuals, an entire country full of monuments and beautiful landscape, where a category such as CAT:WIUS can bring residents together to discuss articles, because knowledge is understanding gained from experience. How accurate would articles be about the U.S. be if they were written by people who have never been there. -PatPeter 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever been homosexual? Can you write accurately about gay issues? You're right that there is not an entire nation of gays, but there are hundreds of millions of gays worldwide. Horologium t-c 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have to be homosexual. What you are trying to convey is that whatever my sexuality that my neutral point of view will change, which it shouldn't, WP:POV. -PatPeter 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not. What I am trying to convey is that just as one does not need to be gay to write about gay issues, one does not need to have visited the United States to write neutrally about it. In both cases, however, it is much easier to write about something with which you have personal experience. What you don't seem to have realized is that this category was nominated exactly 12 hours after Category:Straight Wikipedians was deleted, and then, possibly because it wasn't enough, the entire Category:Wikipedians by sexuality was nominated, which would eliminate every single LGBT user cat. Can you name any Portal (not WikiProject, Portal), that has had all of its associated user categories deleted? I'm all for deleting useless user cats, but I do recognize that there is collaborative potential in the LGBT cats. I think some of them need to be merged, but this is not one of them, and certainly deleting all of them is rather foolish. In the UCfD discussion about Category:Wikipedians by sexuality (scroll up), you will see that I suggest pulling the LGBT cats out of Category:Wikipedians by sexuality, and my rationale. Right now, your proposal to merge is not going to be of much use if the target category is deleted. Horologium t-c 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and while I think of it, it should be pointed out that none of the people in this cat are added because of a userbox; they all actively sought out the category. The userboxes do not add people to the category, for philosophical reasons. You might want to consider that as well. Horologium t-c 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you going with this? -PatPeter 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Missed this at first...My point was that unlike the majority of the cats listed here at UCfD, the ≈200 members of this group all consciously chose to add themselves to the group, rather than had it added inadvertently by a userbox. Userbox overcategorization is often an issue, but that is not the case this time. Horologium t-c 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, useful for collaboration. Two delete arguments given here are terribly flawed. First, the lack of a heterosexual category is irrelevant; as far as I know heterosexuals are the vast majority and do not need a category to find eachother for collaboration. Second, the existence of a wikiproject is also irrelevant; a user can join a lot of user categories, but joining every wikiproject you could but do not intend to contribute to is impractical and bad for those projects. I'm in a lot of categories for subjects I'd be happy to help on if asked, but I will not join a dozen wikiprojects without the intent to contribute regularly to each of them. I'm beginning to think I should write an essay to link to for the last one... it's far too common and a terrible deletion rationale. BigNate37(T) 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This category, like those in Category:Wikipedians by religion, is based on self-identification, so I don't see anything inherently divisive about it, as the nominator has suggested — inclusion in this category is on an opt-in basis. "Gay" is not an overly specific, non-defining user characteristic ("Wikipedians who like chewing gum"), but a broad characteristic which can indicate an area of expertise or personal interest. I can see this category aiding in collaboration by expanding the pool of editors who may be interested in helping to improve gay and lesbian-related articles beyond participants in WikiProject LGBT Studies (especially since LGBT Studies is a comprehensive collaboration, which also covers bisexuality and transgender-related topics, and an editor may wish to find another editor with special knowledge that is specific only to a gay or lesbian-related topic). -Severa (!!!) 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just direct homosexual Wikipedians to the WikiProject, if they aren't going to participate in that project they aren't going to use this category to help articles. Don't they specify their sexuality at that WikiProject? -PatPeter 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not always. I was curious, and went and looked at the member list for the WikiProject; there are several participants who do not appear to be gay, but work in sociological or anthropological fields that intersect with some articles under the aegis of the project. So no, joining the project does not explicitly state a sexual orientation. WikiProjects are open to anyone, even if they don't fit into the relevant category. Horologium t-c 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as above; this category and the LGBT Project are mutually exclusive because obviously anyone can participate in the project, and I second the comparison to Category:Wikipedians in the United States. It is not divisive, and I have yet to come across any editor who has used this or any category (or WikiProject) for Wikipedia-inappropriate socializing along the lines of MySpace or a dating site; that is insulting to the majority of editors who take this site seriously. I am constantly frustrated by editors who seek to delete useful and non-distruptive categories etc. because they are not essential. TAnthony 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. LGBT covers more than just gay-identified people, so having a cat for those who identify as gay (as opposed to identifing as lesbian, bisexual, or transgender) is useful. Kolindigo 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - gay topics exist, gay people have the right to collaborate. Same do Orthodox, Greeks, Scuba divers, etc. That said, by a straight (but apparently not "narrow") Orthodox Greek scuba diver. NikoSilver 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Collaborative potential is obvious.--Ramdrake 23:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Serves no collaborative potential, and Wikipedia is not a dating site. ^demon[omg plz] 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Severa. There's no good reason to delete this that I can see. — Red XIV (talk) 11:45, 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.
- 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 Category:Wikipedians who use iBook G4 computers and Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS X to Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. I spent a great deal of time teetering between delete and merge on this group. While I am not a proponent of "otherstuffexists", I'm not comfortable deleting this in a vacuum and merge seems to be the best compromise decision here as there are a number of users who took this as an alternate choice. I do understand collaborative concerns given differences for java, WP:AWB and other items. There may be value in looking at Category:Wikipedians by personal computer as a group nom to truly determine if there is value for the entire batch. After Midnight 0001 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers[edit]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Coredesat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Merge with "Wikipedians who use Mac OSX", and "Wikipedians who use iBook G4 computers". -Much as I dislike macs, an easy way to find people with personal experience with macs and osx could, at least conceivably, aid in collaboration. Bladestorm 06:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:WikiProject Macintosh members is thataway. This category is just for social networking purposes, not collaboration. Dmcdevit·t 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it's necessary to assume bad faith here. That said, after thinking about some of the other proposed categories for deletion, I'm slightly changing my vote. Bladestorm 06:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how anything I have said indicates bad faith has anything to do with it. Lots of people come to Wikipedia and create inappropriate content mistakenly. Requesting deletion is not an assumption of bad faith on the part of those people. Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have overstated my point, but I think that saying, "This category is just for social networking purposes, not collaboration" (emphasis mine), jumps to a conclusion, to the exclusion of all others. In any event, we both know the other's opinions, so let's see what others have to say. :) Bladestorm 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the Wikiproject participant category groups people willing to contribute stuff relating to Apple products more effectively. Redundant and prime for abuse. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MER-C. Also apply !vote to all other such categories currently up for discussion. Blast [improve me] 25.06.07 0401 (UTC)
- weak keep or consider a merge per Bladestorm. JoshuaZ 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I really can't see any potential for collaboration, despite the claims made. The simple fact of using a Macintosh computer is, by itself, essentially meaningless. What is the frequency of use? Is the user an expert in Macintosh systems or can he or she just use the basics. Even if the user is an expert, does he or she have access to sources about Macintosh computers? Does the user actually have an interest in contributing to Mac-related articles? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Relisted on 6 July 2007. Add additional comments below.)
- Keep - the type of computer being used can influence such things as software, downloads, etc. -PatPeter 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This might be a suitable target for merging the other cats, but I also see the WikiProject as being a better way to facilitate collaboration. However, unlike most PC users, Mac users tend to be a bit more, um, enthusiastic about their chosen platform, and are therefore more likely to be able to contribute to articles about them. This is the only one of the cats in this group of Mac cats that is even marginally useful, however. Horologium t-c 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let them join the WikiProject and be enthusiastic without making a redundant category. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0100 (UTC)
- Keep. It's my impression that at least some of the software used by contributors to Wikipedia is platform-specific. I'd like to be pointed to tools that are Mac-friendly, and the category could help here. Note that this is different from contributing to articles about Mac, something I'm unlikely to do.JQ 08:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rename and merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in MacIntosh computing. I'm beginning to really hate the "there's a wikiproject for that" argument (refer to my comment on WP:UCFD#Category:Gay Wikipedians to see why), but this is too general. I think since many Wikipedia contributors are above-average computer users, they fail to realize they have higher-than-average skill and view themselves as valuable resources; that is fine but the requirements for inclusion in the category as-is are too low to be of use. Macs are easy to use, and using one does not qualify someone to write about it. BigNate37(T) 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the rename is justified. Using a Macintosh computer is not the same as being interested in them. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use iBook G4 computers[edit]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Coredesat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with "Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers" -There is potential for collaboration. Bladestorm 06:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per points made re: Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merge' per Bladestorm
- Keep this and all other categories of this sort except the empty one and the ones with only one user. This is a rampant paternalism. Adding up the number of people who have spoken for deletion, its about 10. Adding up the people who use these categories, is probably about 10,000. It is of course possible for all 10 thousand to be wrong and the ten to be right. But I think users determine what categories they think useful. Action here is only needed about particular tones that are actually divisive or otherwise disruptive. The people who decided what's encyclopedic are the editors in general by consensus, and they have clearly decide. The consensus is a thousand to one against.
- I dont use these categories--i find them useless to me. But I dont see why other people who find them useful should bother me in the least. This is user space. DGG 23:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comments for Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers above. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(relisted on 6 July 2007. Add additional comments below.)
- Delete. Failing that, Merge into Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. But Delete is the preferred option. Horologium t-c 22:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS X[edit]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Coredesat 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with "Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers" -There is potential for collaboration. Bladestorm 06:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per points made re: Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. MER-C 09:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per Bladestorm. JoshuaZ 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have lots of categories on hardware use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to offer a reason to keep these, and everything else you pasted this non-argument to? We do have lots of crap, but that is no reason to keep crap. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Bladestorm. --wpktsfs 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Bladestorm. If you somehow run Mac OS X on a non-Macintosh computer you can created your own category.SteveSims 03:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comments for Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers above. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge - Allows for identification amongst Mac users to assist collaborative effort. אמר Steve Caruso 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does knowing who uses a Mac assist collaborative effort? I'm genuinely curious as it may get me to change my recommendation. So far there have been various assertions that the category could be useful, but no examples to illustrate how. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(relisted on 6 July 2007. Add additional comments below.)
- Delete - Unless it can be proven that there is
no collaborative purpose for this category, policy reigns over common sense. Ten merge votes that say "per Bladestorm" do not a fallout majority make.--WaltCip 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct in assuming that you meant: "Unless it can be proven that there is collaborative purpose for this category"? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Failing that, Merge into Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. But Delete is the preferred option. Horologium t-c 22:16, 6 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 Skype
- 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 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This category serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no collaborative merit. Using Skype is very general, and does not infer any expertise which could assist in articles. --Haemo 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no redeeming encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't myspace. MER-C 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is relevant as indicating people who will be available via this communication channel--I know it's a little controversial to rely on it instead of WP talk--so all the more relevant. DGG 19:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that the purpose of categories is to group pages together—you're suggesting you'd be willing to go through a list of users whose only similar quality was that they used Skype so that you could communicate with them on such-and-such a subject. A search of members from a WikiProject member cat or an 'interested in' cat that turned up a Skype userbox would be much more sensible. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0055 (UTC)
- Keep. We have lots of categories on software use, so there's no reason to delete these.--Mike Selinker 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as this actually may help people to get in touch with each other; it facilitates collaboration in that sense. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In general, a user category is useful only if there is a valid reason someone might browse through it (e.g., seeking someone with expertise). Seeking users solely for the purpose of contacting them is social networking. Legitimate contacting can be carried out by means of the userbox. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(relisted on 6 July 2007; add additional comments below.)
- keep' — for reasons of "futureproofing" - it may become more relevant as the technology develops and could be linked in with Wikipedia — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's a problem with speculating on possible future technological developments, especially in that it justifies the creation of user categories for virtually any technology. If Skype becomes relevant, the category can always be recreated. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For relevant reading, the policy is WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0056 (UTC)
- Comment - the "users could call each other using this category" argument is bogus. I can't find even one user in this category who lists their Skype info. How about Category:Wikipedians with listed Skype contacts instead? --Haemo 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Haemo's second !vote. If some users list their Skype contact info, the category he proposes is a good idea, but I wouldn't rename this category, or create a new one without any users in it. Horologium t-c 17:37, 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:Restoration Unity 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 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This category, with no on-wiki links (two external links) is a sub-cat of Category:Restorationist Wikipedians, and all three members of this group are members of the parent cat. The text for this category refers to the "Stone-Campbell Movement", which is a redirect to Restoration Movement, which is the article link for the parent cat. This is a bit of overcategorization that should be deleted. Horologium t-c 18:51, 6 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 born between 1985 and 1989
- 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 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of two "range" categories in Category:Wikipedians by year of birth. The other one, Category:Wikipedians born between 1990 and 1994 has also been nominated for deletion. While the users in this category are all adults, there is no particular reason why this particular grouping of years is relevant. 1984 is closer to 1895 than is 1989, but it has been excluded through an arbitrary grouping. Better to retain the single year convention than open the door to additional groups. Horologium t-c 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the discussions a long time ago, which is the reason why I created the both of them. The idea is that specific year cats aren't useful for collaboration, but generation grouping by year is (fall of the Soviet Union, 9/11, etc.). Octane [improve me] 06.07.07 1841 (UTC) See concession below. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0207 (UTC)
- Delete. Stereotypes aside, I do not think that there is a correlation between period of birth and interest in or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about a given subject. Period of birth has little or no relevance to awareness of sources about or interest in various subjects. Otherwise, everyone born in the 1960s would be writing about the Vietnam War and decolonisation, people born in the 1970s about oil crises, those born in the 1980s about Reagan and Gorbachev, and those born in the 1990s about internet pornography. ;) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, that was the idea. They might not be interested, but you could canvass the category for input on expanding an article that documents an event that occurred when they were aware of it (probably 15 years on up). This is the one type of user categories I actually support, aside from Babel cats and other such things, because the topics covered are likely too small to be folded into a WikiProject member cat. Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0052 (UTC)
- Whoops! I forgot about the 15- to 20-year difference; toddlers probably care much about encyclopedia topics. :) Still, I think that sort of canvassing would be highly ineffective and that collaboration would be better served by a Category:Wikipedians interested in X category, provided X is a sufficiently broad topic. If it is not broad, the talk page will probably be the best venue for collaboration. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, point. (: Octane [improve me] 07.07.07 0206 (UTC)
- Comment For the final nail in the coffin, I present to you Category:Wikipedians by generation. (It's amazing what one can find by digging through the categories.) I think this categorization pretty accurately accomplishes what you were attempting with your creations, but on a broader, more consistent scale. Horologium t-c 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the coffin could use one more nail? The (in principle) identical Category:Wikipedians born between 1990 and 1994 was deleted per a deletion discussion initiated on July 4. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That nomination was what led to me discovering this one, which I promptly nominated. Horologium t-c 19:28, 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:Liberal theist 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 Merge. After Midnight 0001 22:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This single member group is not linked to any articles, and the description is essentially the same as Category:Theist Wikipedians. Suggest merging Category:Liberal theist Wikipedians into Category:Theist Wikipedians. Horologium t-c 18:35, 6 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 5
Category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar
- 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 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No collaborative potential. My recommendation is delete. Alternatively, we could merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics. Octane [improve me] 06.07.07 0255 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not merge. Wikipedians who obsess over grammar is definitely not the same. This is also has no collaborative merit -- the League of Copyeditors can do your obsessing in a functional way. --Haemo 05:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Linguistics is not the same thing as being a grammarian. I propose a rename into a more encylopedic title like Category:Wikipedian grammarians or Category:Wikipedians interested in grammar — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Haemo. Obsessing over grammar is not the same as being a grammarian and not quite the same as being "interested in grammar". Someone who obsesses over grammar may just do a lot of minor fixes to articles and have no interest in articles related to grammar. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Haemo and Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obsessing over grammar is divisive Wiktionary:pettifoggery, and will actively discourage constructive colloboration. ROGER TALK 23:43, 6 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 listen to 78 RPM records
- 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 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MYSPACE. This serves no collaborative purpose. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It may indeed be useful to be able to find people who have the equipment to play 78 RPM records. Back in the days when I still had a turntable, it didn't even have a 78 RPM setting and I couldn't even play those old records at a slow setting because the stylus just skittered out of the groove. Those records would play just fine on my dad's antique windup Victrola, though. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful how? Just because the equipment is rare does not make the owners any more likely to collaborate on something. Dmcdevit·t 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of people have unplayable 78s in their attics, a lot of it may very well be out of copyright by now and could certainly help fill up the dearth of material over at Wikipedia:Featured sounds and on Commons. Being able to find other Wikipedians who can play and digitize those sounds can be of great use to the project. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really anything so recent will be out of copyright. Again, this sounds far-fetched. The category was not created for that purpose, and unless you are going to undertake the project yourself, I doubt it will ever be put to that purpose. Dmcdevit·t 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 78rpm and similar speed records go back as far as the 1890s and overtook cylinder recordings in popularity in the late 1910s. It is very likely that there are many recordings still out there from before the 1923-01-01 US Public Domain date in people's cellars and in antique shops. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the concept that someone would be able to use this category to find a user with their unplayable 78 RPM records, go over to that user's house, and then record sounds from those records for Wikipedia defies all reason. No collaborative potential. --Haemo 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Rather than personally schlepping your records over to someone else's house; I was thinking something more along the lines of FedEx or UPS. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Relisted on 6 July 2007. Add additional comments below.)
- Keep and rename - per Elipongo and the fact that it has enormous potential. A re-name would give the category more credibility - something like Category:Wikipedians interested in 78 rpm recordings, thus including users who do not have a player and/or set of records. Plenty of Wikiprojects are started off by sifting through user categories, so don't let this one die. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per Haemo. The possibility of that happening is so slim-to-none that I don't see the potential collaborative merit that this category can produce. It's simply yet another MySpace-type social networking category. ^demon[omg plz] 15:48, 7 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:Antireligious 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a category for Wikipedians who detest religions". This is a Support/Oppose category. This category does not facilitate collaboration, as it is a statement of opposition. there are other categories that can be used to express one's lack of belief in a deity; this one is superfluous. Horologium t-c 23:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 23:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, see, it was funny the first time. "Act of god" implied bringing religion to antireligion. : ) --WaltCip 02:47, 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:Anglican 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 merge to Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the same category as the more expansive Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians, which acknowledges that not all churches in the Anglican Communion use the term "Anglican". Suggest merging Category:Anglican Wikipedians into Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians. Horologium t-c 23:27, 5 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 have experienced Blue Screens of Death
- 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 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This category does not provide "a foundation for effective collaboration" (it may be a humour category). There is no reason to expect that having experienced a blue screen of death causes increased interest in the subject (at least to the degree that one would want to write about it) nor does the experience improve a person's ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. The category was created to supplement two userboxes and the category seems to be populated solely from them.[reply]
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, all-encompassing. --tjstrf talk 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep I get blue screens of death all the time and it would be nice to get collaboration together for tech support. -PatPeter 05:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete I think everybody on Wikipedia has experienced some kind of error with computers including the dreaded blue screen of death but this cat doesn't really help anybody out except maybe tech support per above. --Hdt83 Chat 05:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in other words, all Wikipedians who have used Windows for an extended period of time. --Haemo 05:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: hey, after windows 9x with the release of the NT kernel and the cheerful goodbyes to DOS, I haven't seen a BSoD except for memory errors and HDD crashes. Er, I mean delete. Instigates Microsoft teasing, generally unhealthy for NPOV. BigNate37(T) 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This was the reason I took a wikibreak earlier this year. I suppose it could be useful to explain breaks in people's editing history, but I'm not sure that's really needed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. Er, I mean delete. Johnnyw talk 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? Could you vote in a more professional way. -PatPeter 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Sarcasm would be "Keep - Useful, and it does no harm". Blue screens do the exact opposite.--WaltCip 02:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not useful for resolving tech support problems either. Mrand T-C 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The structure of the category alone makes it non-encyclopedic, and the category is not something that facilitates collaboration. It also rather pointedly excludes non-Windows users. (Macintosh used to have the bomb, Amigas had "Guru Meditation", but what about Linux?) Horologium t-c 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No indication that grouping users experiencing this would be helpful to Wikipedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 7 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:Ranma ½ fans
July 4
Category:Wikipedians who support the Revival of ReBoot
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would set precedent for Wikipedians who support the revival of any cancelled TV show if kept. Not useful for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. I want to see Starman back on the air, but I don't need a category to express that sentiment. We could end up with thousands of cats. Collaboration can be done on the talk page for the article. Keep as a userbox only. Horologium t-c 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep first Comment. It was very rude not to inform the creator that his category had been nom. per deletion. And this category was not made for a show off the air it was made for a cliffhanger, so no there would not be thousands of CATs, unless you can name 1000 cliffhanger television series. -PatPeter 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I say delete it. In regards to PatPeter's comment: if the nominator can make the confusion between a canceled show and a cliffhanger (whatever that is) based on the name of the category, so can someone who wants to create a category for a canceled show. So uninformed as it was, I feel the nomination bears just as much validity as if it were accurate in its assessment of the state of ReBoot. BigNate37(T) 18:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wait what do you mean 'make the confusion'? A cliffhanger is not a canceled show, but a show that never officially ended, like the last dialog in ReBoot talks about a hunt about to begin, and it never happens. So it can be a canceled show if no reruns play . -PatPeter 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that by the sounds of the category's name, one could get the impression this category is about a canceled show. That is close enough to the category actually being about a canceled show (as the nominator thought) for someone else to think they can make a category for a different show that has been canceled. Therefore my point was that even if User:VegaDark is wrong in calling ReBoot a canceled show, his/her point is still valid in that it would set a precedent of sorts for any show that can thought to be eligible for "revival". BigNate37(T) 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This show is effectively cancelled, since it is no longer being produced, and there is insufficient interest among distributors to revive it. The series Benson ended with a cliffhanger, too, but we'll never know who won the election, because ABC did not renew the show, and production ended, which is the same thing as cancellation. Same thing for The Quest, which was cancelled by ABC after just a few episodes; we never found out who would be the next ruler of Glendora. (This is a fairly obscure show; no wikilinks for it.) Just because a show ends with plot lines unresolved does not indicate that it is likely to be revived, and the show in question here was cancelled six years ago. Horologium t-c 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is actually much hope to the revival of this show as there is an entire site and forum devoted to reboot, also a site completely devoted to its revival, which has 900 members. -PatPeter 05:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 900 members sounds a bit low to me.--WaltCip 13:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its growing everyday. -PatPeter 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a "support/oppose" category and is thus inherently more conducive to social networking than effective encyclopdic collaboration. In response to PatPeter, there are many television programmes (e.g., soap operas) with seasons that end in cliffhangers. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But some of those soap operas you are supposed to assume what happens, the producers announce the ending of the series. Like Friends doesn't come to a definite ending but it was announced. -PatPeter 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, Wikipedia is NOT MySpace, and this category does not foster contribution. ^demon[omg plz] 12:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By keeping this category, we may introduce potential good contributors to Wikipedia (of the 900, 1000-almost people that may come here), it doesn't hurt to keep it. -PatPeter 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By keeping this category, we are inviting the creation of dozens of categories for similar projects. There are many shows with devoted followings which are canceled/not renewed, and have groups lobbying to renew them (Firefly, anyone?); we don't need categories for all of them. Retaining the userbox is fine, but there is no need for a category. Excess categorization does harm the project, and any collaboration that can occur for this show can be done on the program's talk page. What you are referring to is socialization potential, which is a perfect example of WP:NOT. Horologium t-c 22:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is firefly a cliffhanger? I am referring to potential of new editors, not having social parties on Wikipedia. -PatPeter 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is there a potential to draw in new editors? If anyone is moved by the cliffhanger to the point that they want to contriubte about the topic, they will first go to the article and its talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- whatever show you support coming back on the air is not conducive to editing. --Haemo 01:56, 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:Wikipedian Maine Coast Semester Alumni
- 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) 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Maine Coast Semester (or MCS), founded in 1988, is a semester-long, environmental education program for high school juniors run by the Chewonki Foundation and located in Wiscasset, Maine" - I think that says it all. Far too specific for collaboration, and only one user in this category. We really don't need a category for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Collaboration can be accomplished on the talk page for the article. Horologium t-c 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Too specific. -PatPeter 22:28, 5 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 against the onychectomy of animals
- 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) 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful for collaboration, and even if you think it is, it would be for a single article, so it would be far too specific for having its own category. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An admin removed your userbox at Talk:Animal Rights as an inappropriate POV edit (he used the term WP:SOAP, which is pretty accurate). He might be on to something, and he is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Rights. If the userbox is too soapy for a page that it references, it is likely that the category is too soapy as well. Horologium t-c 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal Comment If you mean that it references animal rights we are all clear on the fact that only things pertaining to the article are to be posted there, it may say that it was due to POV, but more so misplacement is the cause. -PatPeter 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-Rebuttal Comment - Yes, but the point is that it WAS POV, per WP:DUCK.--WaltCip 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per "NOT" precedent.--WaltCip 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I have the category on my page, but take a dim view of being invited to vote for something, "if you fell this category should stay on Wikipedia, please contribute.", rather than just voice my opinion if it should stay or not. - Francis Tyers · 18:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it appears that PatPeter has been busy canvassing for a votestack on this category, in violation of WP:CANVASS. In addition to Mr. Tyers, messages have been sent to at least two other users, and PatPeter has added the userbox to two IP users who have supposedly asked him to add it; one hasn't contributed since August 2006 and the other's sole contribution was a comment on the category page, with no request to add the cat. This is beginning to look like an AN/I case. Horologium t-c 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not conducive to building an encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 07:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not good for Wikipedia. Jet123 (talk) 18:22, 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 oppose Srebrenica Genocide denial
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far too specific for any possible collaborative use, also a political issue category which were all previously deleted. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as severe POV-pushing. The user who belongs to this category and its associated userbox runs a blog devoted to the issue (prominently linked at the top of his user page, and also at the top of his talk page). Whether or not one agrees with the sentiments behind the category is irrelevant; this one is quite divisive, and the user has a history of blocks over related issues. I'm tempted to MfD the userbox as well, but I'll hold off on that for now. Horologium t-c 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Keep - You can't bring a history of blocks into this discussion, that is a personal comment that has no need to enter this discussion. Also genocide is overlooked too much, like I bet you never heard of Rwanda. I also ask would you nom. a Category for deletion if instead it was Wikipedians who oppose Jewish Genocide denial? -PatPeter 17:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to give publicity to overlooked human rights violations, war crimes, or murders. Categories organised on that (or a similar) basis should be deleted. Replacing Srebrenica with "Armenian", "Jewish", or "Rwandan" does not make any difference. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a "support/oppose" category. Thus, it is inherently geared toward social networking and presents little or no basis for constructive encyclopedic collaboration. In addition, it is a divisive political category – the category namespace is not the place for soapboxing or advocacy. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I created the category, and have no opinion on the genocide per se, so I won't vote. Deleting it as possible social networking when there are categories like: Category:Wikipedians interested in history or Category:Wikipedians by interest which has 86 subcategories seems like a double standard. Since Wikipedians are also allowed to specify their politics, again saying this category is too political presents another double standard. When/where was it decided such categories were inappropriate? I'm interested in reading through whatever discussion came to this conclusion. Anynobody 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is nothing like the "Wikipedians by interest" categories, which allow users to express an interest in collaborating on specific groups of articles. This one, on the other hand, advocates a particular political belief and a divisive one at that. As for your second point, the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by political ideology categorise users by general ideological affiliation (and are in effect subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by philosophy) rather than personal views on one of millions of political issues. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Black Falcon. Rockpocket 07:45, 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 all races are one
- 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) 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful for collaboration. There are thousands of beliefs Wikipedians may or may not have, but we certainly don't need a category for each one. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 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.
Category:Wikipedians who are James May 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 delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too specific for collaboration. Would set precedent for keeping a "fan" category for every biography on Wikipedia if kept. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, nom. is, respectfully, bollocks DBD 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? VegaDark (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, so there is ground to say the nomination is invalid regarding the precedent potential. However in my opinion, despite the WP:INN essay, precedents do affect people's perception and could mean more work for us removing categories that wouldn't have been created at all were there not a (perceived) precedent. BigNate37(T) 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only one person in group (user who voted keep, above). Retain as userbox only. Horologium t-c 22:08, 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.
Category:Wikipedians who are Jeremy Clarkson 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 delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too specific for collaboration. Would set precedent for keeping a "fan" category for every biography on Wikipedia if kept. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, nom. is, respectfully, bollocks DBD 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only one person in group (user who voted keep, above). Retain as userbox. Horologium t-c 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no constructive purpose. AW 15:48, 5 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 collect Hello Kitties
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure "collect" category, would set precedent for a "Wikipedians Who collect" category for any random thing if kept. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, (only one person in category) or Rename as Category:Wikipedians interested in Hello Kitty as a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in toys or Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga. The Hello Kitty article is categorized under Category:Anime series and Category:Toy brands, among others, so either would be appropriate. It should be noted, however, that this category is a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in collecting, along with six others, including coins and baseball cards. Whatever precedent is set here will almost certainly apply to the others. Horologium t-c 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Hello Kitty. The one who collects Hello Kitties must be interested in them. AW 02:21, 7 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:Users who write comedy
- 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 — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Users" instead of "Wikipedians" so it needs a rename at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Wikipedians who write comedy as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as too vague. What is included in it? If I write a joke just below this comment, can I add myself to the category? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; writing comedy is not the same as being able to write about comedy. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be opposed to deleting with that rationale. VegaDark (talk) 02:02, 5 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 busy
- 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) 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Users in this category are busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." - At minimum this category should not be in the babel naming system, but additionaly I would argue that there is no benefit to a category at all. Knowing who is busy in real life is useful, but it is something that can be communicated on a userpage. Having a category would imply that there would be some use or value to looking through the category specifically grouping or seeking out wikipedians who are busy, and I can't think of why that would be helpful in any way. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom, but at least needs a rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By definition, this category cannot be used for collaboration. Not needed. Horologium t-c 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no useful purpose. This cat is populated just because of automatically categorizing as people add the template. AW 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Or rename to "Users who are a good choice to start with if you want to hack into someone's account". - Richfife 17:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Or rename to Wikipedians who insist they have a life. ROGER TALK 04:34, 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:Wikipedian Maine Natives
- 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) 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This category contains people that were born in Maine, no matter where you live" - It is not useful in any way to categorize users based on where they were born. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This category does not conform to standard category nomenclature, and (until I moved it) was not listed in the proper parent category. Horologium t-c 19:57, 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.
Category:Wikipedians born between 1990 and 1994
- 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. Users may add themselves to the single-year categories as appropriate, but mass migration would be difficult. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedians in such a category would be minors, and many similar categories have been deleted before.
- Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They were deleted, as I understand, as a result of WP:CHILD, which is not policy (nor ever was, I think), and at least once because of WP:IAR, which was really stretching that policy's boundaries. Therefore, I think this discussion should really focus on whether or not this is a useful category, not because of previous deletions. I have no particular feeling in the matter, since I don't think anything has happened yet to the aforementioned minors that other editors would need to ask about (compare with the documentation of the falling of the Berlin Wall and suchlike, which various age cats would be useful for, I imagine). Octane [improve me] 04.07.07 1926 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Why this particular grouping of birth years is relevant is beyond me; individual years (added as they reach age of adulthood) would be more appropriate and useful. Horologium t-c 18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians born between 1985 and 1989, the only other "group" category in Category:Wikipedians by year of birth. Horologium t-c 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or, better still, split up by year. We may not allow under-13s to give out their age, but no such rule is being applied to teenagers. --tjstrf talk 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete — too specific an age range, and other ideas above are too high-maintenance. I would support the creation of Category:Wikipedians who are minors in principle, if users wanted to show their minority, but with various different ages of majority globally, it would be unworkable — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Stereotypes aside, I do not think that there is a correlation between period of birth and interest in or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about a given subject. Period of birth has little or no relevance to awareness of sources about or interest in various subjects. Any canvassing of such a category for someone to collaborate with will be highly ineffective and could be better served by a "by interest" category or posting a comment on an article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:38, 9 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 performing arts: Wikipedians interested in the Heizman
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposedly a category for users interested in the Heizman, a type of dance for which no article exists yet. The category is populated by a userbox with the text: This user does or did the Heizman on that ho. My impression is that this is actually a joke category as the text of the userbox does not imply any interest in collaborating on "Heizman-related articles". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be related to something that appeared on YouTube. There is an unlinked reference to it in the article Snap music, but that article is so packed with crufty goodness that it is hard to tell how notable this might be. If it is kept, it needs a rename, because it is currently a malformed attempt to be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in performing arts. Horologium t-c 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - appears to be a joke cat --Haemo 03:49, 5 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 for an end to the boxwar
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category was essentially obsoleted by the arrival of userbox migration. In any case, it is not useful as a category and I think it goes against the spirit of "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Wikipedians will differ in their views on policies and processes, but I don't think it's productive to give any degree of formality to these divisions by setting up categories for different camps (especially when doing so presents no collaborative potential, as is the case 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:Pastafarian 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 merge Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians to Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians to Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories are essentially the same. Indeed, Pastafarian redirects to Flying Spaghetti Monster. A previous CfD to merge FSM into Pastafarian failed. One of the reasons stated was that 'Pastafarian' is "an explicit dig at" Rastafarians and may thus be considered offensive. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural question: the CfD-tag hasn't been added to Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians (it's been added to the other category). Should something be done about this?--Ramdrake 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both with extreme prejudice and salt This is another subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by religion. Why was it not deleted with the rest? (I remember citing this in my comment on the CFD thread, as an example of a category that needed to go away. I thought the delete result accomplished that; apparently I was wrong.) BTW, both of the categories should be nuked. Horologium t-c 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I see that the deletion was overturned at DRV. I still say both of these joke categories should be excommunicated from Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge while these may not mean much in the way of real-world religion, users within this category are likely to be knowledgeable on sbujects related to the creation-evolution debate. However, there is definitely a potential for merge, as the original CfC on Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians concluded.--Ramdrake 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This whole thing is a rather old joke now. I rather liked the joke when it first came out. If we want to attract editors who are knowledgeable on subjects related to the creation-evolution debate, let us have a category that is called "Wikipedians interested in the creation-evolution debate".
As it stands it should have gone with the Wikipedians by religion. If we can not have categories for real religions we should not have them for joke religions. --Bduke 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' However, the "real religion" categories didn't get deleted.--Ramdrake 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- mea culpa. --Bduke 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, joke category. --tjstrf talk 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this is being actively debated, I will wait until it is closed before I submit Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its
three four subcats (I moved another cat into it), which include the two cats in this discussion, for deletion. They are all joke categories severely lacking in collaborative potential, and the parent category is misspelled to boot. As I was not following the DRV debate on Category:Wikipedians by religion, I had not realized the deletion was overturned, otherwise I would have submitted it already. Horologium t-c 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Oh, jeez. Now we're afraid offending RASTAS, of all people. Wikipedia: No thick skin required.--WaltCip 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you support the original nom, which was to merge two virtually identical categories? I was the one who suggested incinerating both, but at the very least, we should merge the duplicate cats, using the already existing cat which doesn't offend anyone. Horologium t-c 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge from B to A.--WaltCip 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom SalaSkan 20:50, 7 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 3
Category:Genetic Marker M343
- 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] 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category for Wikipedians with genetic marker M343, which according to the article M343 is "carried by most Western Europeans". Aside from the fact that being a carrier of a given DNA sequence has little or no relevance to encyclopedia-building, this category is used by only one user – incidentally, the same user who created the userbox which populates the category. There is also the issue that any possible collaborative potential is limited to one article only – M343 – so any collaboration can be handled on the article talk page.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. The referenced article is a mess too. I tagged it for cleanup; it may need a total rewrite, as there is a lot of verbiage and no real information. Horologium t-c 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the simple fact that it is carried by most Western Europeans should be evidence enough that it's totally useless as a collaborative tool. --Haemo 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 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.
Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Office
- 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] 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category holds little or no potential for encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of using a given software can indicate an improved ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it only in limited circumstances, particularly when use of the software requires technical specialisation. This is not the case with Microsoft Office – a software used by tens of millions (if not more). The scope of this category is too broad to be of any real collaborative value.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I sense that people are getting in tune with my deletion rationales for most of these software-based categories. --Haemo 01:43, 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.
Category:Wikipedians who use MySpace
- 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] 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a social networking site or a directory of MySpace users. Given the popularity of MySpace (and thus the broad scope of the category) and that practically no technical expertise is required to use MySpace, this category has no collaborative merit. Even if it had any such merit, the scope of collaboration is limited to essentially one article; any coordination could be better handled on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - MySpace itself has several Wikipedia groups[2] that serve the purpose far better than this category can. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Elipongo, that is one of the best XFD arguments I have ever seen. Wow. Shalom Hello 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per Elipongo's sterling argument.--WaltCip 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Elipongo's iron-clad argument. (Not sure if a speedy is warranted in this case.) Horologium t-c 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? It's a redundant category, and those are speedied frequently.--WaltCip 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not redundant within Wikipedia. External links can't be used as a speedy justification. Horologium t-c 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and Elipongo. --Haemo 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rockpocket 07:51, 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.
July 2
Category:Wikipedians born in California
- 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 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the subcategory: Category:Wikipedians born in Oakland, California
Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Being born in a place does not endow someone with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that place (note: personal experiences constitute original research) or even necessarily an interest in editing articles related to that place (for that, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in a region). In addition, unlike the "by location" categories, these categories are not useful for requesting photographs as they say nothing about where a person currently lives. Finally, the two categories are used by just one user and are the only ones that group editors by place of birth rather than of residence.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --wpktsfs 01:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. Category:Wikipedians in California and Category:Wikipedians in Oakland already exist. However, I also found Category:Wikipedians from Texas, Category:Wikipedians from Iowa, and Category:Wikipedian Maine Natives, which were misfiled in the Wikipedians by ethnicity cat. I moved them over into Category:Wikipedians in the United States. Additionally, the userbox ((tl:User:Feureau/UserBox/Proud Americans)) contains both Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in the United States, so now Category:Wikipedians in the United States and all of its subcats also shows up in Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. Gahhh. Userboxen suck. Horologium t-c 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- being born in a given state is a very trivial attribute, and belies no expertise which could be use to collaborate. --Haemo 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above and also it's redundant to Category:Wikipedians in California
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 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.
Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subcategories: Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians with High Functioning Autism, Category:Wikipedians with PDD-NOS
This category merely expresses a personal mental condition, and neither an expertise in the subject area or any propensity for editing these articles at all. (Some searching turns up WP:NBAT which may be a more useful place.) Category:WikiProject Psychology participants would be much better place to start than people merely afflicted with the disorder. With no potential for collaboration, this seems to have little use other than social networking. Dmcdevit·t 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Invaluable. It profoundly affects a person's perception of life. ROGER TALK 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also in regards to Roger Davies...so? What difference does it make on wikipedia? ^demon[omg plz] 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking along the same lines as Elipongo. ROGER TALK 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I actually have had the opportunity to use this category for collaboration. There's an autistic teen who disruptively edits the Lord & Taylor article and we solicited advice from people in this category for some insight. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not going to suggest deletion or retention, but I would suggest that all the subcats in this category, if retained, end up in either Category:Wikipedians by mental condition or Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition; currently, this entire category in in both of the parent cats. There are many categories in Category:Wikipedians by condition that are in both the mental and physiological subcats, which is overcategorization. One might suggest merging both Category:Wikipedians by mental condition and Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition into the parent Category:Wikipedians by condition, eliminating the overlap. I would also support consolidating several of the Autism cats into one cat, as Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians with High Functioning Autism and Category:Wikipedians with PDD-NOS are each listed separately under both mental and physiological, and as subcats of Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum in both mental and physiological. That is a little bit compulsive, to say the least. (small grin) We could spend days looking at possible consolidations in Category:Wikipedians by condition and eliminate many categories simply by consolidating the dups, without deleting anything. Horologium t-c 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was bold and removed the extra cats from the three subcats of Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum. Horologium t-c 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Elipongo. This cat also helps editors with a spectrum disorder, like myself, welcome other editors who have a disability on the spectrum, in turn encouraging them to stay or seek editing help from others who may be able to connect with them on a better level. --wpktsfs 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~ Wikihermit 04:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Elipongo. Pervasive developmental disorders effect one's perception of things, and, in particular, their communicative style, so I think that these categories can help in building an assumption of good faith on the part of autistic editors. I also disagree with consolidating the high-functioning autism, Asperger's, and PDD-NOS categories, as suggested by Horologium, because these are all distinct conditions, each with its own degree of effect. A person with high-functioning autism will be very different from a person with PDD-NOS. -Severa (!!!) 12:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You misunderstood my intent, which is understandable since I didn't state it very well. I did not want to merge them into each other, but each of those categories was listed four times-once each in Wikipedians by condition/wikipedians by mental condition and Wikipedians by condition/Wikipedians by physiological condition, and in each of those two cats as subcats of Wikipedians on the austism spectrum. I've already eliminated all of the extra cats; those three subcats appear only in Wikipedians by condition/Wikipedians by mental condition/Wikipedians on the autism spectrum. I agree with you that the three are not the same thing. Horologium t-c 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I personally think there is some value in this category. My own Aspergers affects the way I process information and write, and I think it would be worthwhile warning other users who might be working with me that it exists. For instance, I have trouble assessing the relative value of related information, so might include more information than needed if doing, for example, a synposis of a film or book. And if writing something with a series of steps, like instructions, I tend to specify absolutely everything. For instance, rather than saying "open the image properties" I'd probably say "right click on the image. A properties menu will appear. Click on image properties. The image properties box will open." it's not (just) being pedantic, but not being sure how much to assume other people already know. I've even written more here than was probably needed. Jodievdw 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The above by Jodievdw is all anyone should need to know. GL Jodie. JDG 17:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That type of information is better expressed through a userbox or a comment on one's talk page. A category is only useful if there is a good reason why someone might browse through it. Knowing that someone has Aspergers may be important, but why would someone deliberately look for people on the autism spectrum? I think that is the relevant question for any user category. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Elipongo. --DodgerOfZion 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep nothing wrong with such a category. SalaSkan 20:55, 7 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 want the xx-s babel box level
- 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 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category for Wikipedians who want a certain type of userbox to be created populated by transclusions of one userbox. I believe this user category is unnecessary for the following reasons:
- "Want" categories generally have limited value as they express a desire for something rather than any kind of ability or interest.
- As far as I can tell, the proposal is no longer being discussed. In any case, the category is not needed as editors can create new userboxes without any sort of permission or coordination.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on this one. simply unnecessary.DGG 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary and proposal has not been discussed for eleven months. Stick a fork in the proposal and pull the plug on the cat. Horologium t-c 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --wpktsfs 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. Pretty much no debate here. --Haemo 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I want many things. AW 02:13, 7 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:Distributist 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 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This category provides little basis for useful collaboration. The only relevant article is Distributism, so any collaborative activity should be handled on that article's talk page. As a "user preference" – putting aside opinions on the validity of "by ideology" categories – do we really need or want a category for every single economic or political ideology? Perhaps an argument can be made for the general ones, but I think this is too specific. If kept, rename to Category:Distributist Wikipedians (i.e., capitalise "wikipedians").
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is another political category, and should have been nuked with the others. Horologium t-c 21:19, 3 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:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
- 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 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to make fun of Hillary Clinton, despite how much fun it may or may not be. This category is divisive, misleading (it's a joke category, really), and nearly empty (the only member is the creator). It offers no potential for constructive collaboration and can be abused to coordinate POV-pushing or vote-stacking.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but only per that the only user in the category is the creator. --myselfalso 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Divisive and not in any way encyclopedic. Yet another userbox created with a superfluous category. Horologium t-c 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If they really were members, they wouldn't tell us. ROGER TALK 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It may be fun, but Wikipedia is not the place. Also, Roger makes a good point! --wpktsfs 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
Roger's right, we wouldn't tell you... I mean, there IS no conspiracy, really!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete joke, or divisive political category. --Haemo 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 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.
Category:Theoretical Communist 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 merge to Category:Wikipedian theoretical communists. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category for Wikipedians who believe that "communism can be beneficial in theory". It is not even a general user preference, but rather an expression of a belief about one ideology. The category namespace is not the place to enumerate beliefs about every topic. It is in principle no different from Category:Wikipedians who believe peace can be beneficial in theory or Category:Wikipedians who believe war can be harmful ... in theory.
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Particularly well-written rationale for deletion. Horologium t-c 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Wikipedian theoretical communists: "Theoretical" communism is different than the contrived examples given. Becuase of the so-called (but not really) communist governments of the world and the way American propoganda has shown them (see McCarthyism), the word has achieved a negative connotation and one must carefully specify that one is referring to literal communism and not Eastern Bloc style socialist government. This is the purpose of the term theoretical here, not to over-generalize or form a truism as Black Falcon implies. Hence, I would be inclined to compare this to any of the other categories (see Category:Wikipedians by political ideology) associated with political views which have arguable value as a declaration of bias. Of course, it appears there is a deletion nomination crusade going on through user categories right now, so that may not be a useful comparison. Incidentally, you may wish to consider the history of User:Christopher/userboxes/Communist Theory, which I am using, and that I created Category:Wikipedian theoretical communists three days before the userbox's author created the category being discussed. BigNate37(T) 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To further comment on the crusade that appears to be going with respect to deletion noms for user categories, I would think that thinly-spread discussion across dozens of nominations all with the same motivation is not serving the best interests of the encylopedia and that we would benefit from a larger discussion around the merits of these similar categories before nominating them individually. Just a thought, for those of you making nominations. BigNate37(T) 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete people who "believe X in theory" is not a collaborative tool. I believe many things; that doesn't make me inclined, or able, to write about them. --Haemo 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're mixing the terms 'believe in' and 'believe'. If you believe in something, you are probably knowledgable about it, whereas if I tell you I'm left-handed and you believe me it is irrelevant. Believing in something also implies interest, and that means collaborative potential. BigNate37(T) 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I completely accede to BigNate's opinion. This category goes far more than mere belief and can be considered as political viewpoint. Wikipedia established the "soapbox" policy to prevent creating mass of foolish believe-categories like two examples Black Falcon stated above. However, not any category which relates to the word "believe" will be regarded as "soapbox". AW 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep However this should, as per BigNate's explanation probably be moved as a subcat ofCategory:Wikipedians by political ideology.--Ramdrake 16:55, 5 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:Spiritual 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 01:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. This category is for users "with spiritual sense, regardless of whether they believe in spirits or not"; this vagueness precludes any potential for encyclopedic collaboration. It is mostly populated by an equally vague userbox that states: This user's spiritual beliefs are complex and personal. A simple category cannot capture complex beliefs and I contend that categories should not be based on something as vague as the possession of "spiritual sense". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By the userbox definition, cannot be used for collaboration. No article link, and no clear meaning. Horologium t-c 04:22, 3 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:Porn Star 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 01:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is either (1) a category for Wikipedians who have "been in pornography" (quoted from the userbox) or (2) a category for Wikipedians who are pornographers. If it is the former, I think it should be deleted. Aside from the vagueness of the classification of "has been in pornography", starring in a pornographic video or magazine does not give one an ability to contribute encyclopedic content to porn-related articles (the addition of personal insights is prohibited as original research). If it is the latter, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian pornographers and made a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession.
- Delete as nom
(or rename). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my nomination, I asked for renaming "if it is the latter" (i.e., a professional category). Given Dmcdevit's comment below, this does not seem to be the case, and so making this a professional category would be misleading. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/move as per proposal Change to Delete as per Dmcdevit (below). Horologium t-c 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Rename/move per proposal as well. ~ Wikihermit 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, I think renaming this into a "Wikipedians by profession" category wuld be quite useless, as this is used as a joke category. I highly doubt this user, who is also a ninja, pirate, mutant, academic, slut, breakdancer, etc. or this user, a pastafarian ninja environmentalist frood who enjoys indiscriminate pillaging, or this Navy Seal, professional chef, professional webmaster, professional DJ, professional photographer, professional broadcater, expert gamer, and advanced pianist who can program in 8 languages, or any of the other, are really porn stars? The category is inherently useless, and people should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography instead. Dmcdevit·t 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot to mention that the first user has social anxioity, also, you can discuss the deletion of that cat above... hehe... --wpktsfs 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename -- I think it has valid uses as a profession category. --Haemo 01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/move as per proposal Change to Delete as per Dmcdevit (above). very convincing, Dmcdevit. AW 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - An illegitimate category, should be used in a WikiProject instead.--WaltCip 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent and above — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 23:18, 6 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 by Myers-Briggs type
- 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 per strength of arguments and precedent of similar categories. After Midnight 0001 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And subcategories: Category:ENFJ Wikipedians, Category:ENFP Wikipedians, Category:ENTJ Wikipedians, Category:ENTP Wikipedians, Category:ESFJ Wikipedians, Category:ESFP Wikipedians, Category:ESTJ Wikipedians, Category:ESTP Wikipedians, Category:INFJ Wikipedians, Category:INFP Wikipedians, Category:INTJ Wikipedians, Category:INTP Wikipedians, Category:ISFJ Wikipedians, Category:ISFP Wikipedians, Category:ISTJ Wikipedians, Category:ISTP Wikipedians
Personality types offer no potential for collaboration. WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Dmcdevit·t 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - Myers-Briggs typography is exceedingly general. A substantial portion of any population will fall into any given one of these categories. They also offer no way to collaborate using this information. As such, this has no collaborative merit. --Haemo 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom and above. ^demon[omg plz] 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - Hundreds of Wikipedians find it useful to list their Myers-Briggs type, and being confined to userpages, it does not make Wikipedia 'less encyclopædic.' --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They find it "useful"? How? For what purpose is it "useful"? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Haemo. Also, "hundreds of Wikipedians" do not find it useful to list their MB type. Rather, hundreds added the userbox, which automatically categorised them. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - none of these categories have been tagged for deletion. --- RockMFR 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've relisted this under July 2 and tagged all the cats. --- RockMFR 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All - Excellent categories. What Dmcdevit and confederates don't understand is that there is collaboration, and then there is that which facilitates collaboration. Editors who meet and greet in the light-hearted atmosphere of these categories ("Hey, you're a Myers-Briggs introvert too?") are more likely to go ahead and collaborate nicely with one another than editors who meet directly in the contentious atmosphere of article editing or article Talk. Nearly all these cats in CfD, though not collaborative in themselves, facilitate collaboration in valuable ways. I'm surprised all these Delete voters don't see this. JDG 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actively looking through a category for people of one's type is social networking pure and simple. The light-hearted atmosphere based on commonality of personalities can be achieved via the userbox. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would make sense if someone were to propose deleting personality information off userpages, but I fail to see how any of that is a reason to categorize users by personality. You can just as easily see that someone is an introvert based on the userbox that populates this category. Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see one example of user categories like this leading to collaboration. You know what leads to collaboration? Wikiprojects. Not random user categories. That doesn't actually happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per what JDG said. --myselfalso 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JDG. Owen 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I can't see why these categories would ever be useful. I can't think of any reason for someone to browse this category while building the encyclopedia. There is no reason to ever need to have a list of people who have a particular M-B type. --- RockMFR 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - They do not harm Wikipedia's mission. As for collaboration, hundreds of business team-building programs use MBTIs or abbreviated MBTIs (such as groups like True Colors, etc.) to build morale and encourage collaborative effort. It's ridiculous to list these for deletion. אמר Steve Caruso 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not quite "ridiculous". It's actually the sort of question on which reasonable people may differ. I disagree with you, but I won't say your position is "ridiculous". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for my language. I shouldn't allow my feelings about how the page deletion systems here at Wikipedia have burned myself and others in the past trickle through to honest pursuit of resolution. My comment on ridiculousness was inappropriate. אמר Steve Caruso 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with deletions here. Do you think the system in place is failing to reflect community consensus, or are you unhappy with some of the community's standards? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a long, multi-year story that isn't really appropriate to discuss here. My userpage outlines some issues, but if you want a more cogent story, simply hit me on my talk page. אמר Steve Caruso 01:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is interesting to note that my type, although apparently representing only 2.1% of the U.S. population, is the second most filled category, but I don't see these categories assisting collaboration on Wikipedia in any way. Anyone who really wants to find other Wikipedians with their MBTI type can still use the "What links here" function on the userbox page. -Severa (!!!) 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Severa raises two points, both of which are flawed and one of which is dangerous if accepted at face value. The first, the 2.1% INTJ to which I also belong: that this should be a relatively less-populous category relies on the unproven assumption that all personality types contribute equally to Wikipedia—all in all, not a big deal. The second, that Special:Whatlinkshere can replace unimportant categories, has slippery slope potential for deletionist arguments and we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into thinking user categories can be replaced by the whatlinkshere page of a template—the reasons being too many to explain here. BigNate37(T) 19:18, 5 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 1
Category:Wikipedians who favor strict gun control and Category:Wikipedians against strict gun control
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories effectively group users according to personal POV. While another category might be used to find people interested in the articles on the topic, neither of these has much potential for that purpose, and they don't have much potential use at all outside of networking with others based on politics. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV advocacy category that has the potential to be divisive and carries no positive collaborative merit. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously pointless advocacy category. Perhaps create a new category for users interested in gun control? --- RockMFR 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advocacy. --Tony Sidaway 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [The user category] having failed an extensive background and drug check, delete.--WaltCip 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My first instinct would be to merge and rename, but I can't think of a new name, Wikipedians interested in gun control still sounds POV to me. I suppose that defaults to delete if nobody can think up of a better name. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Favouring or opposing an action does not automatically imply an interest in the subject. E.g., most people oppose mass murder, but most are not interested in editing articles about it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a political advocacy category, which is innately divisive. --Haemo 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 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.
Category:Wikipedians who would like to earn a Barnstar
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. The easiest way to earn a barnstar is to do something useful for the encyclopedia (technically, it should also be something that is likely to be noticed). However, a barnstar is really not much different from a regular "thank you" note, except for the "Ooh ... shiny" effect, and I don't think we should encourage the impression that it is. (Note: the category is populated solely by transclusions of User:Sawblade05/Userboxes/toearnbstar.)
- Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course. No point. Shalom Hello 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would never look at this category when presenting a barnstar, I don't know why anybody would. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-promotional, at best. Certainly not useful for collaboration. Horologium t-c 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no potential use for this designation. -- DS1953 talk 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Could have sworn I nominated this myself a while ago, but I guess not. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 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.
Category:Wikipedians who believe TINC
- 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category populated solely by Template:User TINC and is based on an inside joke. The userbox is all in fun and the essay is fine, but I think the category (a byproduct of the userbox) is unnecessary. It serves no collaborative purpose.
- 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.