< April 2008	June 2008 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete Category:Wikipedians in Tōkyō. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination due to a complaint after speedy merging this to Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo. Category was recreated, but I will refrain from a G4 deletion in favor of a bigger discussion. And FYI, the category was tagged properly at original nomination. VegaDark (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have at least put a notice on the page or even my talk page before deleting it. I am far too busy to watch all administration pages. In any case, I live in Tōkyō, as it is spelled at the station, and maps in English. Tokyo is a misspelling. Notice other properly spelled categories such as Category:Wikipedians in Ōsaka Prefecture and Category:Wikipedians in Hokkaidō. Bendono (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (comments moved from closed discussion) VegaDark (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo - The article is located at Tokyo, if you have an issue with the name, take it up there. I will be more than happy to keep the "Tōkyō" title if you get the article name changed. Otherwise, it is standard practice for user categories to match article names. VegaDark (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I spent over a years time trying to fix Tokyo to no avail. Now all that I can do is boycott the article. I can not accept a misspelling such as that on my own user page, and categories names appearing at the bottom of a page can not be piped to an alternative spelling. If the category is ultimately removed, I will be forced to remove Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo as well from my user page. What shall it be replaced with: Category:Wikipedians in the biggest city of Japan, but which can not be spelled correctly on Wikipedia? Be away for three days (traveling). Bendono (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo and delete the recreated category. "Tokyo" is the commonly-accepted spelling in the English language, the main article is at Tokyo, and the main category is at Category:Tokyo; there is really nothing to fix. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo; this is the English Wikipedia, and that city's name is spelled Tokyo in English. Create your own userbox (without a category) if you dislike that spelling, but the category is inappropriate and violates WP:POINT. Horologium (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Wikipedians in Tokyo" for reasons explained by others - IMO it is fine to make a userbox to state that you oppose this. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Tokyo" and comment Keep for all the reasons outlined above and my prior nomination. It is unrealistic for someone to post on every user's talk page when a category is going to be deleted. If you care about it, watch it or check its Atom/RSS feed. Personally, I would prefer that the article be at Tōkyō as well, but as long as the main article is at "Tokyo" there is no justification for this name. This is especially so when it is redundant of another category as well. If you want to put "Tōkyō" all over your userpage, you can go for it, but that is a different thing from creating a redundant category for it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last point, if the category is merged with the misspelled Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo, then no matter what I do, at the bottom of my user page Tōkyō will be misspelled as Tokyo [sic]. Also, my name will appear in the Tokyo [sic] category. Both situations are simply unacceptable. I will ultimately be forced to remove my name from the category since Wikipedia is not mature enough to spell the place correctly. Tokyo [sic] is verifiable incorrect and is only more common because typing diacritics is less convenient. By the way, consider these two categories: Category:Wikipedians in Osaka and Category:Wikipedians in Ōsaka Prefecture. Again, one is verifiably correct and one is not. Bendono (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please get over your insistence that only the spelling with the macrons is correct; for one thing, the English language does not use diacritics (which includes macrons), and for another, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government website uses the spelling Tokyo exclusively in the English language version of the site. Are you going to try to convince us that they don't know the English spelling of the city's name? (FWIW, that most certainly counts as both reliable and verifiable.) Further, the discussions over the other categories are not likely to support you; one of them needs to be changed, because the article is Osaka Prefecture, without the macron, and the other one should be changed, because the Hokkaido government website uses the spelling "Hokkaido" without the macron as well. Neither of those, however, are particularly germane to this discussion. Horologium (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Category:Wikipedians in Ōsaka Prefecture to the speedy section above, with a target of Category:Wikipedians in Osaka Prefecture. Horologium (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not patronize me. As a long term resident here, as well a linguist, I know how to spell Tōkyō. The Internet is great, but try a real library, particularly a university level where more energy is spent on correctness. It is ridiculous that Wikipedia is so often of such poor quality that it can not spell words correctly. I will not try to convince you as there really is nothing to discuss. I will simply be forced to remove my name from the category. Bendono (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Check out a professional edited encyclopedia:

Also, I hope that you are aware that Ōsaka and Osaka are separate physical locations. Bendono (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the MSN Encarta article is at Tokyo, not Tōkyō. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now it is. I have been told that it will be fixed in the near future. Encarta has been slowly correcting the spelling of their Japanese articles. A year ago Ōsaka was at Osaka. Bendono (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and another amateur encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, has their articles at Tokyo and Osaka (note the lack of macrons in each title). You accuse me of patronization, yet the sneering condescension of your posts is blindingly obvious to the others participating in this discussion. Oh, and for what its worth, the city of Osaka's official website (http://www.city.osaka.jp/english/) also uses the spelling of their city without the macron. Your attitude appears to be "I know better than the governments of Osaka, Hokkaido, and Tokyo how to spell the names of their cities". I spent two years in Japan; the use of macrons is far from universal, and as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, this is the English Wikipedia, and English does not use macrons. Horologium (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you spend your two years in Japan? If it was in Tōkyō, then did you pass through Tōkyō Station? Or perhaps you may have rode the Shinkansen to Tōkyō. Yes, those are the spellings. If you want pictures, I can go get some next weekend. Or perhaps it was Ōsaka, again Ōsaka Station or the Shinkansen to Ōsaka. (Not going there anytime soon though, so no pictures for now.) Or perhaps you could just get an English language tourist book: Tōkyō. Bendono (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yokosuka was where my ship was stationed. I've been to Tokyo, but not Osaka. I've flown into, out of, and through Narita International Airport (which, btw, gives directions to and from the airport to the cities of Tokyo and Osaka, among others; no sign of Tōkyō and Ōsaka on their map here-another official site), but not Haneda International Airport (which also describes itself as "Tokyo International Airport", not "Tōkyō International Airport at its official website). I note that you have steadfastly ignored anything that doesn't agree with your PoV; are you going to declare all of these (official, Japan-based) sources wrong, or is there another explanation for the discrepancy? Horologium (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above that I was traveling. I just flew back into Narita last night. There are many signs at the airport using Tōkyō. The most prominent are the departure / arrivals boards. They use Tōkyō. Every example you give I can counter with another. The issue is clear; there is nothing to discuss. If you want to enforce your POV with a verifiably incorrect spelling, then do so. I will remove my name from the category. Bendono (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is childish Bendono, "Tokyo" is not a misspelling as "ō" and "o" are not separate letters in English. Wherever the article on To/ōkyo/ō is located, that is where the category should be. If you think that said article should be moved, then propose it there. I feel like I should warn you that you will be outvoted, since there is a style manual for these matters, and "Tokyo" clearly fits it.

Also, I don't think you understand how categorization works: if you want to put this code into your userpage after the category is deleted, no one is going to stop you: [[Category:Wikipedians from Tōkyō]]. For that matter, you could put the category [[Category:Wikipedians who like to fight about "Tokyo" versus "Tōkyō"]] on there as well. You just can't actually create content there, as the former is redundant and the latter is encyclopedic. Finally, no one is forcing you to be in Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo, either. What makes you think that this has to be on your userpage? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is childish. I have both an educational and professional background in these issues. We will have to agree to disagree. However, per Wikipedia:User_categories#Naming_conventions, there are no violations. Bendono (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for Wikipedians listed at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users. The problem is that it uses "Users" instead of "Wikipedians", a naming convention we switched to long ago for user categories. Another thing to consider is extensive precedent to delete this type of category, but this looks to be a unique case since it is actually associated with a Wikipedia-space page, and perhaps could actually be useful to search out highly active users. On the other hand, "highly active" can change in a short period of time, and it is already listified. All that being said, I'm undecided between a delete and a rename. If renamed, I propose Category:Wikipedians listed as highly active (or similar), so that when someone becomes inactive and is removed from the list, people will have justification to remove the category from the userpage. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the list serves the purpose much better than a category could. If a user wants to advertise her/himself as being "highly active" then they should make a userbox or something. —Over My Head 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the list; lists of Wikipedians by activity status, when they are necessary or appropriate, are better handled through lists (which can offer additional context and information) than categories. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians listed as highly active. To replace users with Wikipedians and to reflect the list better. Nom's comments make sense. Also, no reason why lists and cats can't co-exist. — Becksguy (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by another user as CSD C3 - populated solely by User:ZinnKid/Userboxes/Anti-Copyright. VegaDark (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support/oppose category, which have an extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aside from being soapboxing, a grouping of users who "[are] against the current copyright laws" is fairly meaningless, since copyright laws differ across jurisdictions. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a soapbox; further, respect of copyright laws is a core principle of Wikipedia, not something that is open to debate. Horologium (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedians from the Cook Islands; no prejudice if a user wishes to renominate the category for deletion as a single-user category. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:Wikipedians in the Cook Islands for grammar. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox that populates the category (Template:User Cook Islands) says "This user comes from the Cook Islands", and since the category's sole user is populated through the userbox, I think a more accurate name might be Category:Wikipedians from the Cook Islands. Also, it's a single-user category. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Wikipedians in Tokyo. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete both. Bduke (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Category:Cocos Islander Wikipedians

Unpopulated of actual users, only populated by a template and wikipedia pages. Additionally, Christmas Island has only 1600 residents, and the Cocos Islands have a population of a whopping 628, so far too small of locations to reasonably be able to support collaboration. If kept, would at least need a rename to conform to standard "Wikipedians from" naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the relative inaccessibility of Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands (it would be quite costly for the average Wikipedia user to go to either of those places), I think these categories would be extremely useful if they contained actual users. However, since they don't, delete both per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per Black Falcon. No prejudice to recreation if the category is populated. Considering the remoteness of these two locations, I would not be opposed to single-user categories here, but there is no need if they are totally empty. Horologium (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete: Looking at past discussions, it would seem that the overwhelming majority of nominated categories for deletion similar to this one have resulted in deletions. I see no reason to deviate from that result here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per extensive precedent to delete categories like this here, not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/extensive precedent to delete groupings of Wikipedians by medical condition. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited precedent is weak. Per User:Ned Scott/User categories. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the deleted medical usercats seem to be joke or semi-joke categories or "myspace-type" related. While there may be no concrete line between useful/collaborative and unuseful medical user-cats, I think this is one that could be positive, and would therefore be a good test case to keep. —OverMyHead 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While that certainly applies to a lot of the categories deleted in June 2007, those deleted in October and subsequently are definitely serious: ADHD, biopolar disorder, OCD, narcolepsy, breast cancer, autism, diabetes, etc. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent deletion of Category:Wikipedians retired from the Canadian Forces below, does not help Wikipedia to categorize based on previous service to a particular country's military. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, in that it does not group users by interest in a subject, by skill or ability to improve the encyclopedia, or by knowledge or understanding of a topic. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per discussion below, I could also support a merge to Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. military, to eliminate the former/current distinction. (Though article and user categorisation guidelines differ substantially, it may be worth noting that we don't have a similar distinction for articles.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the value of this for collaboration, easily. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see Ned's point here. The military (in general) and the US Military (in particular) have a culture that is in many ways quite distinct from the rest of the nation, and while each service has its own distinctions, there is a commonality to military experience that can be useful when collaborating on subjects relating to military issues. That said, I don't know that the particular configuration of this category (which seems to be limited to those who have served, rather than those who have or are currently serving) is all that useful for collaboration. I seem to recall a category for wikipedian military members which might be a more appropriate category; I'll search for it later on, as I have company over right now. Horologium (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The category of which I was thinking is Category:Wikipedian military people or the subcat Category:Wikipedians in the U.S. military. (I feel rather stupid for not remembering this.) While there is a difference between "currently serving" and "previously served", that difference might not be terribly relevant for editing purposes, and a merge should be considered. If they are merged, make sure that both of this category's child cats are moved in the merge as well (Category:Wikipedians in the American Legion and Category:Wikipedians in the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Horologium (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Response to Black Falcon) No offense, but you didn't really explain your rationale either, but simply asserted it. Horologium sums it up pretty well for me, and I don't have much more to add than that. The merge that Horologium proposes would be by second choice, but would be preferred over deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - None taken, and I wasn't trying to challenge your comment, but rather to find out what you saw in the category. I wouldn't want to recommend deletion of a category with collaborative potential simply because I failed to see it. :) Regarding Horologium's explanation, I can understand and even agree with it, but I have some doubts related to the distinct experiences of military people of different ranks and specialisations (e.g. fighter pilot, sniper, driver, sailor). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some shared experiences transcend rate/NEC/MOS/specialty differences and sometimes even rank. Anyone who has been aboard a US Navy ship can tell you that there is little difference between an Avionics Technician First Class and a Seaman Apprentice when working in a repair locker, and during a Man overboard evolution, senior officers have to report in person to their stations just as newly reported junior personnel. Horologium (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. The experience you describe is, to a large extent, shared by military people across militaries, is it not? While there is undoubtedly a difference in the culture of a military embroiled in a 40-year-long civil war (Colombia) and one that has not fought a war in decades, or between a military that consists of conscripts and one that is an all-volunteer force, is this difference something that would be relevant for the purposes of editing and, therefore, something that we might want to capture through a category. In other words, is there a reason to separate the category for those who serve(d) in the U.S. military from the general category for military people? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think we need to differentiate between those who served and those who are currently serving, but I think that unified categories for the military forces for individual countries is a reasonable basis for user categorization. We don't need individual categories for each branch of the service (some countries, such as Canada, don't have such a differentiation, at least in theory), but (as you pointed out in your response) the military activities of Ireland are likely to be quite different from those of Israel or the United States, and the categorization may be of some utility. I'm not strongly attached to the category (and I support a merge), but outright deletion would be my third choice, behind merging and maintaining the status quo. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I could support a merge to Category:Wikipedian military people as a compromise for this category, and would support a similar merge for the others in a later nom. Or perhaps merge all 4 US military ones to a new cat. VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who advocate deletion have failed to demonstrate that the existence of this category harms Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. - Ken Thomas (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOHARM. We don't keep pages simply because they may not actively cause harm; your comment assumes that "harms Wikipedia" is the only valid criterion for deletion (or merging, in this case), which it most definitely is not. In the long run, retaining useless pages does cause harm, because it creates clutter, hinders the navigability of the category system, and breeds inefficiency. (The preceding comment don't necessarily apply to this category directly, but to the "no harm" rationale more generally.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it would be helpful to post a quote from the page you linked: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." I think the opinion reflected in the paragraph you linked to is shortsighted and wrong, and since it's not a policy and I don't agree with it, it failed to influence my vote. The wonderful part of this being of course, that my vote is no less and no more valid than yours. - Ken Thomas (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you disagree with the argument presented at WP:NOHARM, I can certainly respect that and will not go to any lengths to convince you otherwise. However, even then, your comment does not explain why we should retain this category. Personal opinions aside, it's a fact that pages on Wikipedia are not retained simply because they do not actively cause visible harm. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Users who used to be in the US Military may be able to expand our US military articles. Also, there are two other categories similiar to this that have not been suggested to been deleted by the author, Category:Wikipedians in the Canadian Forces and Category:Wikipedians in the Israeli Defense Forces which have way less members, possibly making them more prone to deletion. I know that the category nominated for deletion is for veterans, not current members, but the members of this category could still provide info on US military. DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-article category, so too narrow of a scope for collaboration. If kept, at least needs a rename to Category: Youth With A Mission Wikipedians or something similar. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. As a side note, the category was created by an abusive sockmaster. Horologium (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and comment I am inclined to delete, as I don't see what encyclopedic value this category has, but if it is renamed, it should be to Category: Youth with a Mission Wikipedians for proper caps. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a category for Wikipedians who like David Weber's Honorverse series." Honorverse is apparently a book series, so needs to follow the naming convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in a book series, which is a "who read" convention (not including the "interested in" categories, which are for those that have both a book series and films). VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read the Honorverse series as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a single-article category, so too narrow of a scope for collaboration. Collaboration can occur on the talk page. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly narrow in scope. Also, based on the text of the userbox (see User:UBX/WWR), which does not contain any explicit reference to an encyclopedically-relevant interest, a more accurate title for this category would be "Wikipedians who listen to Whole Wheat Radio". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support/oppose category, all of which have been deleted previously. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom, per extensive precedent. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a support/oppose category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. A userbox, which provides information about one user, is fine; however, a category, which creates a political grouping in this case, is not needed or helpful. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like a politically motivated category. It looks more like a struggle against corruption. Nevertheless, delete.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Populated by a userbox with the text "This user lives in India". I see no reason how this is any different from Category:Wikipedians in India, and hence should be merged. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Wikipedians in India as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians in India per nom as a duplicate category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for Wikipedians who once lived in Canada. Does not help to categorize based on where someone once lived, if kept would set precedent for one of these for every country. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (or upmerge to Category:Canadian Wikipedians - second choice) - A category for 'Canadians who are currently or were at one time living outside of Canada' is purely a self-identification category and it does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Youngstown, Ohio for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Australian Catholic University to match standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:WikiProject Minnesota Twins participants to remove "user" per current standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians in the Balkans to Category:Wikipedians in Europe

Nominator's rationale: There is no need to subdivide Category:Wikipedians in Europe by region (especially when the region is not entirely clearly-defined). The category is functionally redundant to other, more specific categories such as Category:Wikipedians in Greece, Category:Wikipedians in Serbia, and Category:Wikipedians in Albania. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:LPIC Certified to Category:Wikipedians with a Linux Professional Institute Certification; delete Category:LPIC-2 Certified. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Category:LPIC-2 Certified

No indication these are user categories, so at minimum needs a rename. However, the category description is "The following subcategories list users that may have received a LPIC, Linux Professional Institute's certification as a Linux Professional". Seems more like an achievement category than something that can be used for collaboration, and if so, surely there are better names for a category for those who could help collaborate on Linux articles. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said "Merge to Category:Linux users or something similar, but those categories were deleted. Therefore, Delete. —OverMyHead 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The by-os cats were deleted because they didn't indicate any particular knowledge about them. When I challenged their deletion, one idea was to make new categories that were not just for Joe-blows, but for users who had special knowledge of OSs, etc. I still plan on exploring that idea as a very nice alternative to the former categories. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Certification of a technical skill is most defiantly appropriate for a collaboration category. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Ned Scott. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. rename, and upmerge ~~Keep and rename~~, but to what title? Perhaps Category:Wikipedians with a Linux Professional Institute Certification for the parent category and Category:Wikipedians with LPIC-2 certifications for the subcat? Then again, the initialism "LPIC" already includes "Certification". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first category name sounds good, but do we really need subcategories for every level? Seems like both could be merged to Category:Wikipedians with a Linux Professional Institute Certification. Is each level sufficiently different for users to be more likely to collaborate on different articles depending on their level? VegaDark (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right: subcategories are probably premature at this time, given that the entire category tree contains only one user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a user category, so at minimum needs a rename. However, the category description is "Users that develop Perl software at CPAN.", so I see no benefit to categorize this seperately from Category:User perl, so my first choice would be deletion or merging. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak delete While it is useful to have a category of Wikipedians that have knowledge about a programming/scripting language, I'm not sure it really matters where they submit their work. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All recent creations that do not conform to current naming conventions of Category:Wikipedians by interest in an author, and need renaming to a "Wikipedians who read x" convention. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/speedy rename all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. My only concern is with Category:Wikipedians who like Michael Crichton, since that category could conceivably be in reference to Chrichton's films, in which case it would more appropriately be titled Category:Wikipedians interested in Michael Chrichton films per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film director. Nonetheless, my first preference is "who read Michael Chrichton" (as per the nomination) since that is the context in which it seems to be used (instances of the relevant userbox (User:Hda3ku/userboxes/mc2) are generally preceded or followed by other userboxes having to do with particular authors, literary genres, or a general interest in books/reading). If renamed, the text of the userbox should be updated to give some type of indication that it specifically applies to Chrichton's books. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete - per author request below. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper naming convention. Usually, the remedy for this would be a rename, but Ivybridge Community College is actually a primary school, not a college, so this is the equivelent of a high school alma mater cat, which have historically been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a primary school. To give this a more universal sense, it takes in pupils aged 11-18. See the article for more info. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything that encourages school children to edit Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should something be deleted, because it encourages school children to edit Wikipedia? I am a school child; would you rather I didn't edit Wikipedia? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the category encourages editing by school children, nor do I agree that we should discourage responsible editing by them. In any case, delete as an "alma mater" user category for a secondary school; see here for a full list (since March 2007) of deletion discussions involving such categories. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's an "alma mater"? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See alma mater. I was referring to the convention for naming user categories for educational institutions (see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater). Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are userboxes okay? See Template:User ICC. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. In fact, several hundred userboxes for educational institutions (primary, secondary, and post-secondary) currently exist: see Category:School user templates. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be used for univerities not for secondary schools (got it now). Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians in Mainland China to Category:Wikipedians in the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: According to the article Mainland China: "Mainland China ... is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area currently governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), including off-shore islands", but exclusive of the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau. Since Mainland China comprises the bulk of the PRC (99% of territory and population), the categories for Mainland China and the PRC heavily overlap. It makes more sense to have a single category for the PRC and just two subcategories for residents of Hong Kong and Macau. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a politically divisive term, similar to political party categories. —Over My Head 19:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to Category:Wikipedian Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim fans

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball fans. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Possibly a speedy candidate. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category can have one of three purposes. It can be a category for citizens of the EU, a location category for people in/from the EU, or a parent category for people in/from the member states of the EU. Regardless of which of these purposes the category has, I think that it is unneeded. (1) A category for citizens of the EU would be purely a self-identification category (which are discouraged); moreover, since citizenship of the European Union is extended to all nationals of EU member states, such a category would be very broad. (2) A location category for people in/from the EU would be largely redundant to the location categories for individual member states (such as, for example, Category:Wikipedians in France). (3) A parent category for people in/from the member states of the EU is functionally redundant to Category:Wikipedians in Europe.

Delete as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too broad to be useful, user can add themselves to the individual country category instead. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. VegaDark (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in United Arab Emirates to Category:Wikipedians in the United Arab Emirates

Nominator's rationale: To add the missing "the". See usage in United Arab Emirates. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename; the word "the" is customary before "United Arab Emirates." Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, we currently don't break down Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions by educational institution. Given the number of such institutions and, therefore, the potential number of corresponding categories, I don't think we should change current practice.

Delete as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel strongly one way or another, but I suspect there would be better ways/tools for this kind of tracking. I can speculate why someone would want to create such categories, so maybe they're not aware of the other options. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete baring some sort of large discussion that sets this type of category to be standard. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of Wikipedia, "heritage" categories are no different from "ancestry" categories, all of which (to my knowledge, at least) were deleted in a series of three (1, 2, 3) nominations. Since the nature of the categories is the same, the original deletion rationale, which I have reproduced below, also remains the same:

Nominator's rationale: Within Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality there a number of categories for "Wikipedians of X ancestry" existing alongside "X-ian Wikipedians" categories for the same ethnic/national groups (e.g. Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry and Category:Taiwanese Wikipedians).
In a previous discussion involving this type of category, it was noted that having a specific ancestry is not necessarily the same as identifying with a certain ethnic or national group. Thus, the distinction between "X-ian Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians of X ancestry" is between reflection of an (active) identification and a (passive) genetic history.
The category description of Category:Wikipedians of Native American ancestry provides a clear explanation of the purpose of these types of categories: they are for users who "do not necessarily identify solely as being Native Americans, but do acknowledge their Native American heritage or ancestry". However, user categories are intended to be navigable groupings of users on the basis of a characteristic that has the potential to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; they are not intended to be bottom-of-the-page notices for self-identification, mechanisms for the expression of nationalist pride, or groupings for the purpose of social networking or social or political identity-building or factionalism.
A comment left at Category talk:Wikipedians of Finnish ancestry raises another question about whether this type of categorisation is meaningful. Technically, a person qualifies for inclusion in Category:Wikipedians of Finnish ancestry if that person's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great... (you get the point...) grandmother was half-Finnish. How is it meaningful to categorise that?
In light of all of this, I propose that all categories that group Wikipedians by ethnic or national ancestry or descent be deleted. Such categories provide information about a person's genealogical history (Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory), but do not cast light on a person's self-identification (the merits of the main ethnic/national identification categories can be debated, but that is best left for another time).
Most importantly, these categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, since they do not reflect any encyclopedically-relevant ability, activity, interest, knowledge, or skill. To quote VegaDark from the April 2007 discussion:

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

Delete all as nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:Wikipedians in India. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/speedy merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded category, sets precedent for a "retired from" category for every army out there. Would possibly be open to a general "veteran" category, but we don't need a specific category for veterans of every individual country's army.

Delete or rename to Category:Wikipedian veterans as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think a general "Wikipedian veterans" category would be particularly useful for collaboration, and it could be partly redundant to Category:Wikipedian military people. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete – rename no longer a viable option since the category became empty since nomination; no prejudice toward those interested in creating an "interested in" category. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to categorize those who have in the past adopted a particular type of dog; similar precedent to delete. Since the category description says that "It is implied that they are interested in collaborating on articles related to this topic", I could possibly support a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Greyhounds or Category:Wikipedians interested in Greyhound dogs. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an overly-specific instance of a "Wikipedians by pet"-type category. The quoted sentence from the category description is automatically produced through the use of ((user category)), so I don't think we should give too much weight to it. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Greyhound adoptees that I've met in real life have all been very passionate and knowledgeable about greyhounds, more so than your average dog adoptee. A lot of this has to do with rehabilitation/special care given to race dogs that are often abandoned when they are no longer usable for races. Even those dogs who don't require special care seem to commonly get adopted by greyhound lovers who seem to be more than a run of the mill pet owner, due to the large amounts of race dogs that get abandoned. We don't know if all the users in this category are in this same situation, so perhaps we should rename and not repopulate automatically, but give a notice on the talk page for greyhound and maybe the Dog WikiProject? -- Ned Scott 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we even have an article specifically for greyhound adoption. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is a very new user category, so re-population won't be a major task. I still support the existence of such a category, since greyhound adoption is not the same as your average dog adoption, and likely can lead to article collaboration about both the adoptions and the dog breed (maybe even the related race articles as well). -- Ned Scott 05:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Merge. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:Wikipedians who like Lost (TV series), which is the proper name per the article name of Lost (TV series).

Merge/speedy merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge for standardized naming. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no strong felling about this, but the article is only at that name because of disambiguation, which wouldn't be needed in the category space. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper naming convention, "who like" should currently only be used for TV shows (which I support changing in the future). This category is for those who like the Dune universe, and thus is improperly named at best, and in unencyclopedic at worst. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "who like" does not equal "willing to collaborate on articles related to" (first choice) or Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Dune universe if no consensus to delete, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename as suggestedDGG (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a self-id cat better suited for userbox; participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction indicates collaboration interest. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Dune universe. Never got into it myself, but there's multiple works for this series that make up a good number of articles. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Over My Head 18:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rename to Category:Wikipedians in Schaumburg, Illinois for clarification (or, alternatively, delete as single-user category for a location of a population of only 75k). VegaDark (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as a single-user category that was not recently created, and per the fact that the category is populated by ((User Schaumburg)), which is a "city of origin" userboxes, rather than a "city of residence" template. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attached to a userbox with the text "This user supports the New Zealand Football Championship". Precedent to delete all support/oppose categories. Doesn't appear to be a "fan" category, of which would warrant a rename instead. VegaDark (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's reasoning regarding the userbox; else rename to Category:Wikipedian New Zealand Football Championship fans per the convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) league fans. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No article on Chart Rulership, apparently has something to do with astrology. Attached to a userbox with the text "This zoidion rising user's chart is ruled by the planet." Not helpful to categorize, precedent to delete astrology categories in the past. VegaDark (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you don't just request that a page be made about it (under way or completed by the time you've read this). Please don't delete this category! --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you created a page, my basis for deletion would be the same as Black Falcon as having too narrow of a scope for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a category that is overly narrow in scope. Although it is technically an "interest" category (though I have to note that the userbox doesn't express a clear, encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject), its scope seems to be limited to a single article. If kept, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Chart Rulership (should "Chart Rulership" be capitalised?). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This category is used by User:SimsFan/Welcome, it's not helpful to categorize users and may appear self-promotional and oppressive to a user when automatically placed in this category. Cenarium (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE as this seems to be building a vanity network...and not one that the members agreed to join. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK delete, but would it be appropriate to add Category:Wikipedians instead. And I don't understand how this could be related to myspace. SimsFan^{Talk to Me • Commons} 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, per the template at the top of that category, "Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly-related pages". Individual users should not be in the category. In general, adding any user category to other people's user or user talk pages is a bad idea. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and I suspect the user may be a sock. Enigma ^message 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category, not helpful to categorize such users. Userbox is more than sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a "not"-based support/oppose category that does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete all 0-level categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a reasonable precedent has been set. — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Feedback 10:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the personal userspace precedents listed here. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the personal userspace precedents listed here. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedian bass clarinetists for proper capitalization. VegaDark (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:WikiProject Sims members per Gwguffey's reasoning and since that was the one for which a preference was expressed. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to either Category:WikiProject Sims participants or Category:WikiProject Sims members per current naming conventions of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Save The HumansTalk :) 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a preference as to which name? VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename with preference for Category:WikiProject Sims members as editors may remain 'members' even when they are not currently active 'participants'. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - I myself am still undecided on this, and after being listed for an extremely long time with minimal participation, there has been no consensus to merge. Feel free to renominate at any time. VegaDark (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge Category:User avk-3 to Category:User avk - Both are single user cats of the same user. Babel breakdown doesn't appear to be needed yet. - jc37 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge - as nominator. - jc37 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. This may be a shocker, but in this case, I actually prefer to leave as is, or even create the "missing" -1 -and -2 categories. This is a valid constructed language (ie, ISO recognition), although very recently approved (14 Jan 2008). Since it is valid, I'd prefer to retain the babelized versions of the category, as per conventions of Category:Wikipedians by language. Horologium (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was essentially: Delete without prejudice for re-creation should there be more interest. I don't think we need 2 categories describing the same language for a single user. - jc37 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all - I have decided to close this as rename primarily to have a consistent naming convention, as a similar category was renamed to the "TV" standard here. That being said, based on this debate I don't think a substantial consensus formed to rename these to this convention, so I encourage anyone to renominate these categories at will if they feel another convention is better. VegaDark (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in animated television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in an animated TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in children's television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a children's TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a drama TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in fantasy television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a fantasy TV series

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in science fiction television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a science fiction TV series

Per the recent discussion resulting in Category:Wikipedians by interest in a comedy television series, This is a group rename to extend to convention to all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series. In addition, proposing to change "television series" to "TV series", to match "(TV series)", the dab phrase of long convention for articles. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as nominator. - jc37 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure, but I think it was desired to have it be television over TV, and that some of these categories had been moved before based on that logic. I'll see if I can find anything on it. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these genre subcats were all recent creations of Lady Aleena. Originally, all the subcats of the genre cats were merely grouped in a single "interested in television" cat. So I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, though I'd welcome more information. - jc37 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I honestly can't find anything. For all I know I'm thinking about some other abbreviation discussion. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 08:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support changing to "by interest in a...", but am undecided on changing "television" to "TV". As the nom above already closed with the "TV" convention, I guess we should change the rest to match for standard naming conventions for now, but wouldn't mind further discussion on that portion of the title in the future. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this and this, extensive precedent to delete this type of category. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murder one per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steal car and run people down per nom. (that's a "delete" for those unfamiliar with the franchise...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or hire hooker) Enigma ^message 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too narrow. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it should get deleted. No one has told me why? The Vandal Warrior (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because user categories should generally be for collaborating on the encyclopedia, and per the precedent cited above, user categories for users who own things, and user categories for people by what video game they play have both been consistently deleted as not being collaborative. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as category does not indicate an interest in developing encyclopedia coverage of topic. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Zero no Tsukaima. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Zero no Tsukaima (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedians who like Zero no Tsukaima (2nd choice). Similar categories in the same subcategory use the "who like" naming convention, but I think that is mainly because that is the Wikipedians by TV show convention, and most everything in the parent category is also a TV show. This looks to be exclusively written, so I think a "who read" convention is more proper. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename More readable and makes more sense. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the first option, makes no sense at present. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy merged by Rlevse. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians in the Boy Scouts of America as redundant. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per nom. The problem is that the Template:User BSA includes people in this category and not the correct one. --Bduke (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge --evrik ^(talk) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited Template:User BSA to change the category so this category is now empty, as all entries came from the category. --Bduke (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the feeder userbox no longer uses this category. —Over My Head 14:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the personal userspace precedents listed here. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Grand Forks, North Dakota for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: National University of Ireland, Maynooth per standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per extensive precedent to delete personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to Category:Wikipedian taekwondoka WTF as redundant and as having no indication it is a user category. Target category could possibly use a UCFD of its own in the future. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 29

Category:Wikipedians in Tōkyō

Category:Highly Active Users

Category:Wikipedians against copyright

May 27

Category:Wikipedians in Cook Islands

Category:Wikipedians in Tōkyō

May 25

Category:Christmas Islander Wikipedians

Category:Dyspraxic Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who served in the U.S. military

Category:YWAMer Wikipedians

May 24

Category:Wikipedians who like the Honorverse

Category:Wikipedians interested in Whole Wheat Radio

Category:Wikipedians who support Change Congress

Category:Resident Indian Wikipedians

Category:Canadian Wikipedian Expatriates

Category:Wikipedians in Youngstown

Category:Wikipedians attending Australian Catholic University

Category:WikiProject Minnesota Twins user participants

May 22

Category:Wikipedians in the Balkans

Category:LPIC Certified

Category:CPAN Authors

Author "who like" categories

Category:Users from Ivybridge Community College

Category:Wikipedians in Mainland China

Category:Wikipedians who like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union

Category:Wikipedians in United Arab Emirates

May 19

Category:Anchorage School District IPs

Wikipedians by heritage

May 18

Category:Wikipedians in the Republic of INDIA

Category:Wikipedians retired from the Canadian Forces

Category:Wikipedians who have adopted Greyhounds

Category:Wikipedians who like Lost

Category:Wikipedians who like Dune

May 17

Category:Wikipedians in Schaumburg

Category:Wikipedian NZFC Supporters

Category:Wikipedians Interested in Chart Rulership

May 13

Category:Wikipedians who have been welcomed by SimsFan

May 10

Category:Wikipedians against singular they

Category:User hil-0

Category:IdLoveOne pages

Category:Jfunk

Category:Wikipedian Bass Clarinetists

May 7

Category:Wikipedians in wikiproject Sims

Category:User avk-3

Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series

Category:Wikipedians who have GTA IV

Category:Zero no Tsukaima wikipedians

Category:Boy Scout Users of Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans

Category:User:Amir Hamzah 2008

May 1

Category:Wikipedians in Grand Forks

Category:NUI Maynooth Wikipedians

Category:User Save the humans pages

Category:WTF Taekwondo participants