< August 2007	October 2007 >

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per precedent. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Operator Please (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as Wikipedians by musician. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per precedent. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as Wikipedians by high school. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, CSD G4. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a recreation of Wikipedians by musician. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename, by creators consent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename to Category:WikiProject Update Watch participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project doesn't recruit members so it will be rather Category:WikiProject Update Watch participants if it needs changing at all. ℒibrarian2 13:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my nomination to participants, sounds like the right thing to do. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Sounds the right thing to do Heltzen◩ 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination, no one has touched the category but the creator and myself and we agree on the rename -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for members of the Jesus movement that chooses to use a pejorative term (see jesus freak) for members of the group. The category does not foster collaboration and is, in my opinion, too narrow in scope..

• Delete or merge into Category:Christian Wikipedians as nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Christian Wikipedians. --Kbdank71 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) See below. --Kbdank71 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the more specific cat is likely more useful than folding it into a voluminous generic "Christian" category. - jc37 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as we should all religious user categories. Being a member of a religion does not foster contribution on the subject. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Note that the category only has one member in it (plus a template page for the userbox, and a category page for the category itself.) Horologium t-c 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per demon and size of category. --Kbdank71 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - single user, and upon reflection, vague inclusion criteria. - jc37 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge both to Category:User en-sco. There was no consensus to delete, and more chose en-sco than any other name (including both category creators). - jc37 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following two categories (and their numeric subcats) were recently created:

• Category:User en-sc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:User en-gb-sct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The apparent intent of the categories is to categorise users who speak Scottish English (distinguished from Scots language which is categorised under Category:User sco).

This is a relisting of the previous discussion below. There is consensus that the two categories are duplicative of each other, the main concern is to what name should the categories have. And one editor questioned whether the categories should be deleted outright.

• Category:User en-sc and its subcats were created by User:Mais oui!.
• Category:User en-gb-sct and its subcats were created by User:Taric25.

Both as a result of Userbox creation.

User en-sc was supported because it was "first", and because several editors felt that the alternative was a "mouthful". There were also concerns about not having any reference to GB (Great Britain).

Category:User en-gb-sct was suggested because of ISO 3166-1 abbreviations of "other" english languages (such as American English). However, there were concerns that that ISO standard was about geography rather than language. And that ISO 639 is the usual naming convention.

Though there is an ISO 639 code for Scots language (sco), there is no actual ISO 639 code for Scottish English, so what is used will be a "created" abbreviation as a result of this discussion.

One suggestion was to follow the en- scheme, and just add sco as the only anglic-scottish-related abbreviation, which would name the category Category:User en-sco.

There was also the concern that "sc" is the ISO 3166-1 abbreviation for Seychelles, and so it should not be used. See Seychelles#Demographics which explains that English is an offical language of the country. Also, "sc" is the 639-1 abbreviation for the Sardinian language.

So for this discussion, since it's already determined that the two are duplicative, and so at least one should be merged/deleted, please state which name you prefer (or if you prefer some other result). - jc37 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have no opinion as yet - Renominating for clarity (and civility) in discussion. - jc37 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to en-sco — Ethnologue shows that one of the dialects of English is Lowland Scottish. [1] (In Scotland the Scots language [ISO 639-2 sco] is called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic [ISO 639-1 gd] spoken by some in the Highlands and Islands [especially the Hebrides].). The same reliable source verifies that Scots is a seperate language. [2] Since the Scottish English dialect predates its current political standing, I understand that many Wikipedians believe that "en-gb-sct" is not a good match. The ISO 3166-1 for Seychelles is "sc", so it is also not a good match. Therefore, I suggest that we merge to "en-sco". Taric25 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge cats and their parent templates to en-sco. I have got to be honest, when I first created the set of templates and their associated cats I swithered between "en-sc" and "en-sco", but chose the former because every other English language dialect template and cat used two letters, not three. But "sco" is quite widely used by Scots (eg. on car licence plates), and is thus easily understood.(For the record, Scottish English is not "a dialect", but rather a group of dialects; just as are other varieties of English with Wikipedia articles. And Scottish English does not have "a current political standing" - that "political standing" was/is a figment of Taric25's imagination.) --Mais oui! 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to en-sco. 'Nuff said. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either to en-sc or en-sco. I understand the Saychelles may need SC, so I'd be perfectly happy with SCO. Not sure if there is much difference, but I've a slight preference to use the boxes from en-sc rather than the en-gb-sct ones as they seemed tidier. MRM 11:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) - I should really read these things before voting. I'd be happy to delete both categories, but merge the boxes to en-sco.MRM 11:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to en-sc or en-sco. Lurker (said · done) 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being able to speak Scottish English (as opposed to any other English, my issue is with the needless specification of which dialect) doesn't foster contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both (first choice), Merge to Category:User en-sc (second choice) or Merge to Category:User en-sco (third choice). As a side note, since I was unfairly flamed in the previous thread, note that the userbox will be retained in any case; we are simply discussing deleting the superfluous categories attached to the userboxes in question. (In fact, the two dueling userboxes are an issue that might be addressed at WP:TFD by an enterprising and intrepid editor, by proposing the deletion of one box or the other.) I gave a fairly detailed rationale for my position in the previous thread; I'll not repeat it here. Horologium t-c 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both (1st choice) or merge to Category:User en-sco (2nd choice). The discussion thus far has focused on the redundance of these categories, but I have to ask: what purpose do these categories serve? Language categories are only useful when they can assist translation efforts ... are the written forms of regular and Scottish English mutually unintelligible? If not, the categories do nothing to foster collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "regular" English? Is it British English, American English or something else? There are several forms of the language, all of which are considered valid. Sometimes there are differences which affect articles (see the edit warring that sometimes breaks out on articles like aluminium) and it is useful to know who speaks what. Also, if someone uses a form of spelling or grammar I find unfamiliar is it a typo or is it a valid usage in another form of English? Knowing they speak another form of the language is useful in this situtation. Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I should have asked: is the written form of Scottish English unintelligible to speakers of other variants of English? Regarding your point about edit warring on articles ... those are essentially always about spelling, which is really a minor difference. Regarding your point about the usefulness of knowing who speaks what: deletion of the categories would not remove the userboxes from individual editors' userpages. The examples you note are cases where one might want to know whether a specific person speaks Scottish English; a category listing everyone who self-identifies as speaking Scottish English is not necessary for that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This goes back to my comment in the first thread. I don't see anything wrong with the userbox; in fact, I have one on my userpage, noting that I use American English. However, I found a userbox that does not have a category appended to it. (User:Feureau/UserBox/AmericanEnglish) Knowing someone uses a particular style of grammar is something that is relevant only on a personal level; one can (and probably should) view an editor's user page if language usage is an issue, but there is no reason to categorize them separately by dialect. There are userboxes for all sorts of regional American and British dialects of English, but the user categories that were appended to them were removed last month at UCfD, which allows individual editors to add userboxes to describe their usage without adding more unneeded categories. Horologium t-c 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both (first choice, per demon), merge to en-sc (second choice). These are user categories for wikipedians who speak a dialect, nothing states we have to follow ISO standards. And please, stop throwing around Encyclopedic content must be verifiable by a relaible source. If that's the case for this category, everyone who wanted to be in it would also need verification by a reliable source that they do in fact, speak scottish english. I'm guessing the category, whatever it be named, would remain empty. --Kbdank71 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI: ISO 639 has been the general consensus for language naming convention around here lately (Though of course, WP:CCC or WP:IAR may apply : ) - Also, thanks for the last sentence, it made me laugh : ) - jc37 01:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Other discussions appear to have no result, closing this to fix capitalization and maintain status quo otherwise. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article Rescue Squadron Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Article Rescue Squadron members, sentence case. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose rename to Category:Wikipedians who are members of Article Rescue Squadron, or the more concise form, Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron.--WaltCip 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Article Rescue Squadron members per nom. The ARS is essentially a WikiProject, so I think the category title should follow the naming convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think we should wait on closing this discussion until the discussions to merge/rename the project have concluded. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Relist to allow project name discussion to complete.[reply]

• So far, the proposal has been unable to gain consensus (see here), largely because the focus of the task forces is somewhat different. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If the proposal gains ground, rename per conventions. If it doesn't, then delete as useless. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User cyr into Category:User Cyrl
• Merge Category:User cyr-1 into Category:User Cyrl-1
• Merge Category:User cyr-2 into Category:User Cyrl-2
• Merge Category:User cyr-N into Category:User Cyrl-N

Cyrillic is an alphabet not a language and the appropriate ISO 15924 code is "Cyrl" not "cyr". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all as per nom. The correctly named and categorized cats exist already. Horologium t-c 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was going to close this as "per nom", but then I remembered that previous consensus has been that the non-glyph alphabet cats should only be a single cat (either you know it or you don't). I don't doubt that you both agree, since you were both in those discussions, but I'm going to wait another day to close this to give you (and anyone else) an opportunity to comment on that. - jc37 10:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually recall that discussion, but I remember that you noted something similar in the discussion for Category:User Latn. I agree that subcategorising alphabet categories by knowledge level is somewhat strange, at least for those writing systems that involve a small, fixed number of characters (the exception I'm thinking of Chinese, which has thousands of characters), but such subcategorisation seems to be a common feature of Category:Wikipedians by writing system. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian academic philosophers into Category:Wikipedian philosophers

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation in the form of mostly overlapping categories. Is the difference between these categories substantial enough to justify their separate existence? Does maintaining the distinction have any value in terms of fostering encyclopedic collaboration? I do not think so. At least 92.5% of users in the former category also appear in the latter.

I propose that we first modify Template:User Philosophy Subject, which currently states "This user's favourite subject is Philosophy.", so that it no longer categorises in either category (merely liking philosophy does not make one a philosopher; perhaps that userbox should categorise into Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy or perhaps it just shouldn't categorise users at all), and then merge what's left in the "academic philosophers" category into Category:Wikipedian philosophers. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Modify template to categorize under Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy and Merge as per nom. That is a well-reasoned solution to a rather messy example. Horologium t-c 02:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Wikipedian academic philosophers to Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy."Guessing" which wikipedians are professional philosphers, and which are some students who happens to take a class on it, is probably a bad idea. I think it's better to err on the side of caution in this. The profs (if there actually are any in the category), can always place themselves in Category:Wikipedian philosophers, if they wish. - jc37 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy renamed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose speedy renaming: Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha → Category:Wikipedians who like InuYasha

Nominator's rationale - Per all InuYasha-related titles, this one was misspelled, badly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: transferred from WP:CFD as wrong forum for proposal. Procedural non-admin action. Bencherlite^Talk 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Zachary ^talk 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per precedent. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who attend Delta Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_high_school_and_subcats. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian irish harp players to Category:Wikipedian harpists

Nominator's rationale: The latter category serves only as a parent for the former, which in turn contains only one user. I do not know how different the irish harp is from other types of harps, but I do not think it is sufficiently different, in the context of fostering encyclopedic collaboration, to merit a separate category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - In looking over the user's userpage, they already have some redlinked "instrument" categories. I don't see any harm in allowing this one as well. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to this. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian national Olympic team fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedian New Zealand Olympic team fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As I see it, expressing support for a national Olympic team is really no different that expressing support for one's country. So, absent a clear mechanism by which these categories foster collaboration and with the hope of preventing the proliferation of "I support my country and the sports teams that represent it internationally"-type categories, I propose that both categories be deleted.

• Delete both as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Though I think these are more: This user is interested in the olympics, and the teams thereof : ) - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian keyboard percussionists into Category:Wikipedian percussionists

Nominator's rationale: Considering that we do not have an article for keyboard percussion instruments and that the article percussion instrument does not contain a single instance of the word "keyboard", I think that this is overcategorisation. On the whole, I do not believe that the separate existence of this category fosters collaboration, especially since the category contains only one user. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would suggest to Rename/Merge to Category:Wikipedian marimbists, as that seems to have been the intent of the userbox creator, except that the current category member seems to be referring to the organ. Such vague usage just suggests deletion to me. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a category for fans of works by Jerry Spinelli. Since there is a precedent for deleting "fan of [individual]" categories, it should either be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who read Jerry Spinelli per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in books or deleted as too narrow in scope (it currently contains only one user).

• Rename or delete as nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Although he has quite an assortment of published books, they all fall under the same general heading of "Young Adult" books, which might be an appropriate target category to create. Horologium t-c 01:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Jerry Spinelli,per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. While general cats may be useful, I think specific cats are more useful than general ones. - jc37 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. Being a fan of an author doesn't help contribution. I like Tolkein, doesn't mean I can write on him or his works. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:User harpsichord-1 to Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists-1
• Rename Category:User harpsichord-2 to Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists-2
• Rename Category:User harpsichord-3 to Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists-3
• Rename Category:User harpsichord-4 to Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists-4

To conform to the title of the parent category, Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument.

• Rename all or upmerge all (added later, per Jc37) as nom and per ample precedent (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per nom. Note that the -1 cat is empty except for templates. I'll support renaming it, though, since the templates exist, it might be used eventually, and it would look strange to have all the cats except the -1. Horologium t-c 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists. Per the discussion about Category:User basic, this is an instrument not in general use (though still used by enthusiasts), and need only have the main cat. - jc37 02:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amenable to the idea of upmerging, as this level of subcategorisation is probably not necessary for this instrument and for so few users. Also, I find it difficult to imagine that a category for users who play the harpsichord at a certain level is useful for collaboration; after all, the userboxes on individual userpages will still provide information about skill level. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, G4. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who own an Apple iPhone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE: this category does not foster collaboration. Merely owning a particular product implies neither an above-average ability nor desire to contribute encyclopedic content about it. See also precedents for Category:Wikipedians who use iPods, Category:User owns a Pink Ipod, Category:Wikipedians who use a Tablet PC, and Category:Wikipedian D-Star users, all of which were deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, once again. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous precedent about Wikipedians by hardware. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom. Lurker (said · done) 10:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted category (G4). Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians with iPhones. Horologium t-c 18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Western Hockey League fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes the following:

These are categories for fans of individual Canadian junior ice hockey teams. The majority (11 of 13) contain only a userbox but no actual users or a userbox and just one user. We should not preemptively create categories unless we are certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... about half of these categories have been effectively empty since January. Moreover, since these are junior ice hockey teams and since there are currently only ten actual users distributed between these 14 categories, I propose that we do one of the following:

1. Delete all categories, including the parent, as too narrow in scope/lacking collaborative value.
2. Selectively delete only the zero-user categories (i.e. those that contain only the userbox), of which there are six.
3. Upmerge all subcategories to the parent category, which will take care of the issue of overcategorisation and category clutter and also reduce the WP:MYSPACE aspect of specific "fan" categories. The favoured team of each individual user will still be identified by the userbox on their userpage.

• Delete all (1st choice), upmerge all (2nd choice), or selectively delete (3rd choice) as nom and per precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. We don't need to categorize one person. I'm leaning against upmerging as well. Just because I call myself a fan of a team doesn't mean I'm also a fan of the league they play in. --Kbdank71 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Being a fan of a team doesn't increase your abilities to write articles on them. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who drink Pepsi Max (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#Wikipedians_by_diet. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MYSPACE. No collaborative value. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No collaborative value, and precedent. --Kbdank71 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per previous "Wikipedians by food and drink" CfDs. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more "userbox with appended category" nonsense. Horologium t-c 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panda's thumb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User category serving no collaborative purpose. Delete --Alksub 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does "panda's thumb" refer just to the 'thumb' of a panda or also to a medical condition? In any case, delete per WP:MYSPACE. The category is either a joke (unless Wikipedia has become an interspecies project) or is a "user profile"-type category that has little collaborative value; at the moment, I'm leaning toward the former since I can't find anything to suggest that panda's thumb is a medical condition in humans. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe it's for luck, like a new-age rabbit's foot? --Kbdank71 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - humorous userbox (implication of a tendency to typo), but no need for the category. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It doesent have any links to it at all. --West Coast Ryda 16:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Category:User Egyp, convention of Category:Wikipedians by writing system, see also List of ISO 15924 codes. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge per nom. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. (Speedy if possible). Horologium t-c 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - relisting with the suggestions brought forth in this discussion. - jc37 06:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-gb-sct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:User en-sc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge; either direction is fine, I have no preference either way, but clearly we don't need both. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the duplicate en-gb-sct back into the original en-sc (which the creator of en-gb-sct had depopulated by editing the User pages of the relevant editors, without the merest attempt at discussion, and despite protest; they then applied the "db" speedy deletion template to all the original cats). --Mais oui! 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was responsible for doing the exact same thing in WP:DEAF. There are only three wikipedians who speak Scottish English and use the userboxes, unlike the more than 60 users of American Sign Language for whom I edited their userpages to reflect the change from ((User ASL)) to ((User ase)). See below. Taric25 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Either direction would be acceptable, although on balance I am supportive of Mais oui!'s idea to Merge the duplicate en-gb-sct back into the original. "English-British-Scottish" in a userbox is an absurd mouthful and so far as I can see not consistent with other userboxes. We don't have 'English-American-Canadian' for example. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We do have American English as ((User en-us)), Canadian English as ((User en-ca)) and Californa English as ((User en-us-ca)) based on the same principal. See below. Taric25 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to the original en-sc per Mais oui! Unacceptable of whoever did that. Astrotrain 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging ((User en-sc)) to ((User en-gb-sct)) is to standardize the template with the rest of the dialect userboxes by verifying it with a reliable source, acceptable by WP:V. If you still disagree, see below. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Keeping the original seems the best option, since there seems no real reason for the creation of the duplicate, and it is a mouthful. Lurker (said · done) 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason for its creation is to standardize the template with the other dialect userboxes. If you still disagree, see below. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To en-sc.MRM 11:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give a reason for your choice. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The move to the en-gb-sc was done unilaterally with no attempt at consensus. Sc may not be an ISO standard, but it is an abbreviation for "Scotland" which surely needs no verification. If the Saychelles want SC, then why not SCO?MRM 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I was just thinking about that yesterday, and I would be happy with "sco", since that is the ISO 639-2 for the Scots language. (See List of ISO 639-2 codes#S.) Remember, we did nearly the same thing with Cantonese Chinese, since it used to be the ISO 639-1 for Chinese "zh", followed by the ISO 639-3 for Cantonese Chinese. May I suggest that we compromise by using "en-sco" instead of "en-sc"?

• Merge to en-sc. There is no such language as "British" and the whole thing is a far too much of a mouthful with it. SFC9394 12:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  British English is a dialect of English, and we have ((User en-gb)) for it. See below. Taric25 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to en-gb-sct. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, I was responsible for moving the old ((User ASL)) to the new ((User ase)). Why? ASL is the acronym for American Sign Language used by the Deaf community, however, it is neither any sort of ISO code nor standardized language/geographic code. We could have gone with ((User sgn-us)). Sign Language has no two–letter ISO 639-1, "sgn" is the three–letter ISO 639-2 for "Sign Language" and "us" is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for "United States", however, we chose to go with "ase", because that is ISO 639-3 for American Sign Language. Even though most of the Deaf community has never heard of "ase", we chose the standard language code based on the ISO. I was then responsible for overhauling the templates and categories from ASL to ase, editing over 60 userpages to reflect the chage, and then posting the ASL categories for deletion. The same story goes for Cantonese Chinese. In this case, Chinese does have a two-letter ISO 639-1: "zh". However, Cantonese Chinese has a ISO 639-3: "yue". So, we changed ((User zh-yue)) to simply ((User yue)). Both of these examples benifit from having their dialects listed in ISO 639-3. Other dialects are not so fortunate. The ISO 639-1 for English is "en". American English is not listed in ISO 639-3, thus the ISO for American English is the ISO 639-1 for English (en) followed by a dash (-) and the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for the United States (us): en-us. In response to User:Ben MacDui, for California English, the procedure is the same, the ISO 639-1 (en) followed by the ISO 3166-1:US for California (us-ca): en-us-ca, not en-ca, since that would be Canadian English. In response to User:SFC9394, for British English this is "en" followed by the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for the United Kingdom: gb. (Not "uk", as that is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD), not the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). Thus, Scottish English would be "en" followed by the ISO 3166-1:GB for Scotland, however, there is no ISO 3166-1:GB for Scotland, but the BS code (listed in ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes) is "sct". Therefore, Scottish English is en-gb-sct, not en-sc, since that would be "Seychellois English", since the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for Seychelles is "sc". Yes, they do speak English (and French) in Seychelles (pronounced "say shells"), and I don't think Seychellois Wikipedians would be very happy if they decided they wanted to make userboxes for their dialect only to find out Scottish Wikipedians had already taken it. The reason I didn't already create userboxes for Seychellois English is I am not a member of the Africa WikiProject. I just wanted to arrange it correctly, should a Seychellois Wikipedian decide to make such a userbox, however, since we have arrived at this debate, I think that it's imparitive that we need the Seychellois English userboxes if nothing else than to prove why we must have Scottish English as "en-gb-sct". Taric25 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, are you all already aware that we already have the userboxes ((User sco)) for the Scots language and ((User gd)) for Scottish Gaelic? Taric25 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ISO 3166-2:GB is a set of codes for the administrative subdivisions of the United Kingdom. It has nothing whatsoever to do with languages.

  You have behaved in a thoroughly disgraceful manner throughout this whole episode. Note to closing admin: Taric25 has just gone round the Talk pages of a load of Seychelles-related editors trying to vote stack this discussion. --Mais oui! 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I just noticed that myself - Taric has posted to 14 user talk pages in a very clear bad faith stacking attempt. This really is an appalling way to conduct a "discussion". Any views from here on should be double checked to see what the motivation is. In my years here I have never witnessed someone acting in such a bad faith manner surrounding this entire situation. SFC9394 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not bad faith to invite users from other countries to discuss any debate. I am trying to form a more objective debate by inviting users other than just Scottish Wikipedians. Do you think it's fair that this debate is posted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa? I posted this there to allow active Wikipedians in both projects to come to a Consensus, however, without even so much as asking me on my talk page first, you have accused me of bad faith, in direct violation of a Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Per the guideline, if you need to criticise me, discuss my actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse me of harmful motives.

  My entire motivation for moving ((User en-sc)) to ((User en-gb-sct)) is to verify the information with a reliable source: ISO. "sc" is not any sort of standardized code for Scotland at all. Per ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes, the code for Scotland is "gb-sct" just as the code for California is "us-ca". You believe that "sc" is the correct code for Scotland? Fine. What reliable source do you have to verify that? Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any proof by any verifiable, reliable source whatsoever that "sc" is any sort of code for Scotland? Encyclopedic content must be verifiable by a reliable source. ISO 3166-2 is the very basis of what we catalog dialects. For example, ((User en-us-ca)) is California English, based on ISO 639-1 for English (en) and ISO 3166-2:US for California (us-ca). Do you have any evidence that "sc" is any sort of code for Scotland?

  In addition, there is no reason for you to claim I "have behaved in a thoroughly disgraceful manner". I am not the one who violated the 3RR. In fact, I reported you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR viewable at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive56#User:Mais oui! reported by User:Taric25 (Result:48 hours). The admin, User:Sam Blacketer, wrote "Clear violation. 48 hour block for Mais oui! due to previous edit-warring blocks, and aggressive talk page edits." In addition, the admin also wrote "This is longer than a normal block because of your previous blocks for edit-warring, and because some of your comments to Taric25 are aggressive." here on your talk page. Per that admin's advice to take a step away from the dispute, I waited 4 days before taking any more action. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to en-sc. --Kbdank71 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give a reason for your choice. Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Per User:Morrismaciver. --Kbdank71 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Morrismaciver's idea to use "sco" instead of "sc", since ISO 639-2 for the Scots language. Would you be willing to compromise to user "sco" instead of "sc"? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No. --Kbdank71 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Encyclopedic content must be verifiable by a relaible source. Do you have any to show "sc" is a valid code for Scotland? Taric25 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to en-sc, "en-gb-sct" has nothing to do with languages --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "en-gb-sct" is the ISO 639-1 for English (en) and ISO 3166-2:GB#BS-only codes for Scotland (gb-sct), just as en-us-ca is for California English, based on ISO 639-1 for English (en) and ISO 3166-2:US for California (us-ca). Taric25 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to en-sc per above consensus. And Taric25, if you pester me because of the status of my !vote, I'll submit an WP:NPA notification so fast it'll make your head spin.--WaltCip 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reporting me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks would require that I comment on you, the contributor, not on content. In addition, I do not stuff beans up my nose. In other words, there is no reason for you to warn me not to violate policy, guideleines, or both, since I neither have ever personally attacked you, nor shall I, so there is no reason for you to "gimme any ideas". I feel that is aggressive. I would like for you to concentrate on the issue, not me. You claim that we should merge to en-sc per the above consensus, however, we have not proved consensus. The only thing we have proven so far is the majority, and per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, wikipedia is not a democracy. If you believe that we should merge en-gb-sct to en-sc, you need to verify that "sc" is the code for Scotland with a reliable source, not a majority. Taric25 02:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (The following is in no way expressing an opinion for the results of this discussion. In other words, it's neutral to the question of whether to rename...) - I have some thoughts and questions:

• It looks like User:Taric25 decided to canvas several editors for this discussion. In reading over his posts, and that page, I don't think he technically did anything wrong with his "friendly notices". I am wondering at the accusatory responses that he's been receiving in this discussion. My apologies if I am misrepresenting anyone's comments, but even if he's misguided in naming convention (see below), it's rather surprising to me to see several editors who I have come to respect to be treating another editor this way. It's as if I should be reading about some vandal or something. And I'm just not seeing that. I really would like to Assume good faith of all sides here, and hope that everyone else in this discussion would do the same.
• As for questions: Is there an iso language abbreviation for the Scottish language/dialect? If so, this discussion likely just became a speedy rename discussion. If not, then who decides what the abbreviation should be? Should one editor's bold creation have more weight and favour over another's? Probably not. Hence this discussion, which should (hopefully) determine the consensus of what the editors agree on what the arbitrary choice of abbreviation should be.
• There are comments that the GB-SCT code is a location code, rather than a language code. Is there any reason to not defer to that, since it's at least an "official" code? If so, what are the reasons? Are there any other "offical" abbreviation standards?
• As an aside, I am wondering if a larger part of this discussion has more to do with the Scottish independence movement, or at least a sense of nationalism, and as such, a preference to not have GB (an obvious abbreviation for Great Britain) in the abbreviation?
• In all, to be most direct, I am asking for verifiable sources/references/citations, so that I might better understand the comments laid out here, in order to determine what the concensus is, rather than what it might "appear to be". Positive, constructive comments are obviously most welcome. - jc37 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "it's rather surprising to me to see several editors who I have come to respect to be treating another editor this way." See contribs for a full history, but in summary Taric unilaterally decided with no discussion to make the change, edited peoples user pages and then nominated the templates/cats as speedy delete empty - I and others contested - Taric got someone blocked for 3RR - admin correctly comes by speedy delete tags and says it is a matter for CFD - 4 days latter Taric is back, edits the cats on peoples user pages again (despite knowing fully well that they disagree) and nominates the cats for speedy delete because they are empty - despite the fact that it is crystal clear the deletion is contested - bad faith, pure and simple. Discussion did not take place - at all stages we were simply "informed" of what was happening - see Category talk:User en-sc-N for the only "discourse" I observed from Taric before it arrived here. The canvassing of editors is very specific and very targeted to suit the argument the editor is perusing (an argument that was never raised before yesterday, it must have been dreamt up in the meantime). In addition what we now see is the editor questioning every view that each editor posts (if it disagrees with his own) which is just annoying folks even more (hence WaltCip's comments above) - and as an aside I don't appreciate condescending comments like "(pronounced "say shells")" - I am not a five year old kid, and I don't appreciate editors who chose to enter discourse treating everyone else like they are. If any more comments are required I will be back later in the day, I have no vested interest, I don't use the userbox or the category - I just don't like to see the good practices of wikipedia undermined in the way that Taric has attempted in this situation. SFC9394 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for responding to at least the first comment/question. The first part of your comments seem to fall under Wikipedia:Be Bold. Though once the bold edits were contested, I would agree that discussion would have been the better course to follow. (Which apparently led to this result.) However, this discussion is now about the categories, and not the user's actions before this discussion. And an editor is welcome to attempt to positively respond to comments. Yes, some editors feel that it's more like spamming a discussion, but if it truly is a discussion, then obviously he's welcome to comment, and question, and respond to each and every comment. Just as every commenter is welcome to ignore his comments/questions/requests. So the user aside, do you have any thoughts or responses to my other questions concerning the categories? - jc37 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What does any of that have anything to do with why "sc" is the code for Scotland and "gb-sct" is not? Per WP:NPA, I would like for you to concentrate on the issue, not me. Do you have any reliable source that you can use to verify "sc" is the code for Scotland? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I indended my notifications to African Wikipedians an invitation to the discussion, per "Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices". I notified less than 15 Wikipedians and their project talk page about this discussion, and if you read what I wrote, I did so in an unbias manner, asking them to simply take a look at the discussion. I was not secretive, as all my notifications were done on Wikipedia, not via IM, e-mail, etc. I have been accused of bad faith and told not to stuff beans up my nose by being told not to make a personal attack, however, no one so far has presented a verifiable, relaible source to support their issue. Instead, I agree with jc37, and I feel these actions are agressive. I would just like to talk about the issue of why we should use one code over the other. Please, can we just talk about that, instead of the actions of editors and what we believe their motivations are?
• Actually, I was just thinking about an ISO for a Scottish language yesterday, and there is an ISO for the Scots language: "sco" per ISO 639-2. (See List of ISO 639-2 codes#S.) I agree with User:Morrismaciver; "If the Saychelles want SC, then why not SCO?" Remember, we did nearly the same thing with Cantonese Chinese, since it used to be the ISO 639-1 for Chinese "zh", followed by the ISO 639-3 for Cantonese Chinese. May I suggest that we compromise by using "en-sco" instead of "en-sc"?
• I have found no other code for Scotland, besides "gb-sct", and I do not know of any reason to not defer to it.
• As this discussion continued, I also began to wonder if this discussion was really about just not having "gb" stare Scottish Wikipedians in the face due to their Scottish pride. I began to believe that Scottish Wikipedians do not need to be reminded that they are a part of the United Kingdom, just as Puerto Ricans do not need to be reminded that they are a part the United States. (Although, Puerto Rico is special, since they have both an ISO 3166-1 code, "pr", and an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, ISO 3166-1:US, us-pr, whereas Scotland only has an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, ISO 3166-1:GB, "gb-sct".)
• What I wanted all along is to verify this information with a relaible source, and that is what I am asking other editors to do. Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For a brief (I could expand - but life too short) explanation of my strong objections to the actions of Taric25, please see User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Speedy_deletions_of_Scottish-related_categories. In particular please note my complaint about Taric25 going round emptying the cats (with, note, ZERO discussion/consultation) by editing User pages, and then in total bad faith applying the "db-catempty" template - thoroughly dishonest, not least because they must be empty for at least 4 days before that template can be used.
• Just something that people may wish to consider here: these are User templates regarding a variety of language. As such they are a somewhat personal, and therefore sensitive, topic; and language is a cultural trait, that frequently bears no correlation to modern political boundaries (eg. "Scottish English" existed for centuries before the invention of the United Kingdom).
• In regard to the accusation that it may be political persuasion that is motivating people's opinions here: Scots (and thus Scottish Wikipedians) are a very diverse bunch of folk. We hold every sort of stance on the constitutional issue. Do not patronise us, or try to pretend to yourself that we are all a homogeneous bunch of raving nats. Please have a very, very careful read of WP:NPA - you may want to ca' canny with the gross generalisms. --Mais oui! 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned above, concerns about the previous actions of the user really should have nothing to do with this discussion. My comment/question was just one of surprise at what I was/am seeing. But let's leave that to some other more appropriate Dispute resolution page. As for the rest, you may wish to re-read what I said, and note that it was a question (note the question mark) and not a statement. And I think you are presuming much about me with your statements. Also, thank you for answering some of my other questions with this statement: "As such they are a somewhat personal, and therefore sensitive, topic; and language is a cultural trait, that frequently bears no correlation to modern political boundaries (eg. "Scottish English" existed for centuries before the invention of the United Kingdom)." - Please clarify if I am misunderstanding, but in other words, your main complaint is the usage of "GB" since it refers to Great Britain/United Kingdom, which you feel is inappropriate in this case due to predating the current political entities? - jc37 10:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (De-indent) This is not my field of expertise, but that is pretty much what is said at Scottish English i.e. "Scottish English is the result of language contact between Scots and English after the 17th century". In other words unlike Californian English, which is a derivative of American English, Scottish English pre-dates modern 'British English'. This, in my understanding would be, for example, why there is no such thing as a generic 'British accent'. All such accents are either Welsh, English, Scots Irish etc. There may of course be also sorts of other reasons for wishing to have (or not have) 'gb' in the code, but the political circumstances should presumably be subservient to the derivation of the tongue in question. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If that is so the case, then we can use the linguistics of the Scots language ISO "sco" instead of the geographical ISO "gb-sct". I agree that not wishing to (not) have the "gb" is less notable per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Would you agree to compromise by using "sco" instead of "sc", since that is the ISO for the Scots language? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, we should be focusing on the issue of how users can verify "sc" is the code for Scotland with a relaible source, not me. If Scottish English predates current political powers in that area, then would it be ok to use "en-sco" instead, since "sco" is the ISO 639-2 for the Scots language? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, how does any of this verify that "sc" is the code for Scotland with a relaible source? If you feel that "'Scottish English' existed for centuries before the invention of the United Kingdom" and "As such they are a somewhat personal, and therefore sensitive, topic; and language is a cultural trait", then is the real reason you do not want to see "gb-sct" as part of your Scottish English userbox because it has "gb" in it and because you believe that Scottish self–identification should show a seperation from the United Kingdom? Taric25 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Scottish English pre-dates modern 'British English" That is the absolute basic point - grasp that point and you grasp the issues that exist across a wide swath of situations. Additionally, I am getting fed up with the view being held that the desire for respect or acknowledgement of the status of Scotland before 1707 is part of some nationalistic independence movement. Not only is it really wearing very thin, but it is basically BF. Scottish english pre-dates 1707, it is not a derivative of the state of Britain - thus it should not be stated as if it is - what that is, in plain factual terms, is misrepresentation. As a post script (and this is probably worthy of an essay at some moment when I have free time as I have seen far too much of it of late) I am getting a bit fed up of what I term the "officialisation" of wikipedia. When the chips fall on any discussion people scramble for their nearest "official status" or "iso code" to "prove" that this "must" be what is stated. The question has to be asked here - who is writing wikipedia - hard working editors who come to an agreement through discussion and consensus via the core policies we have in place - or is is a unidentifiable, unattributable, unaccountable group of bureaucrats who produce something with the word "official" or "iso" on it? When that is the case then the effect here is to use such content to attempt to smother any debate - the words official get banded about like it has been handed down from the heavens and cannot be disagreed with. As I say, I have seen a lot of it of late, particularly in content disputes (across a wide range of issues), and it strikes me that we are in danger of becoming not a encyclopaedia that represents the agreed upon view produced by a large body of editors, but a sanitised, iso'ised version of reality - where anything that exists out with "official" sanction is denied and destroyed. A little bit too 1984 for my liking. SFC9394 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What does any of that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Your comment discusses what you believe Wikipedia should be. That exactly what Wikipedia is not: a soapbox. If you believe that we should publish whatever "hard working editors who come into an agreement" decide, then go write an essay. Get the Wikipedia community behind you, and re–write Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources so that you can publish what ever you like, rather than what we can verify with a relaible source. Until then, encyclopedic content must be verfiable with a reliable source. "gb-sct" is the ISO for Scotland. If you believe that Scottish English is irrelevant to its current political status and that it is tied to the Scots language, then may I suggest "sco", the ISO for the Scots language, instead of "sc"? Taric25 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not misrepresent my views - I said nothing about publishing unverifiable views, I did add a lot of comment on people trumpeting "official" as a term that should overrule everything in its path. As for the rest - I think it was summed up nicely by Kbdank71 in his edit summary - "nothing says we need to go by ISO. They're just categories for userboxes, for pete's sake". End of discussion as far as I am concerned. The ISO do not define what does and does not exist - and there is absolutely no reason for anything to be moved. Goodbye. SFC9394 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Publishing "sc" as the code for Scotland without verifying a reliable source is to publish an unverfiable view, in other words, original research. For example, User:Morrismaciver's following statement is original research; "Sc may not be an ISO standard, but it is an abbreviation for "Scotland" which surely needs no verification." We can verify the abbreviation for Seychelles is "sc", not Scotlant, per ISO 3166-1, a reliable source. We can also further verify that the abbreviation for Scotland is "gb-sct", per ISO 3166-1:GB#BS-only codes, since we can also consider that the BS code is also a reliable source. All you've done is "comment on people trumpeting "official" as a term that should overrule everything in its path". What does that have anything to do with verifying that Scotland's code is "sc" with a reliable source? You could verify some other standard, like a SIL code, and I would accept that as a reliable source. It doesn't have to be ISO or even offical, as long as you can verify it and the source is relaible. User:Kdbank71's statement "nothing says we need to go by ISO. They're just categories for userboxes, for pete's sake" does not follow other user categories. Just take a look at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians who use hieroglyphs. They're using the 4-letter ISO for writen languages: ISO 15924. Taric25 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you all for your comments. Only a clarification, a request, and a question as a follow-up. First, Taric, please learn how to properly thread discussions. Trying to follow what or who you're responding to has become, I'm sorry to say, nightmarish. It's pointless to respond to people, if they can't tell to whom or to what you're responding. Second, My use of the scottish nationalism link was because it was the closest link I could find to illustrate a sense of scottish pride/nationalism/personal identification. I am unaware of previous debates on this topic, so my apologies if the mere link unintentionallly brought up hurt feelings of the past. And finally, as I mentioned in my initial comments, if there is an iso code, current convention is to default to it. And according to ISO 639-2 sco is the code. If not for the contentious discussion above, this would probably become a speedy discussion to merge all to Category: User sco et al. (SC would be inappropriate because it applies to a different language.) However, as I look over the userboxes involved, the two category schemes in question both link to Scottish English, not to Scots language. As such, the obvious solution would seem to be Category:User en-sco (et al) per previous convention as well. Now having noted this, I am still not commenting on the current proposal, but merely showing what has been the case in the past. Though I am curious, are there any concerns about following the iso convention, as well as previous UCFD concensus, in this case? - jc37 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason you may have found it difficult to refactor the discussion is everyone seems to have their own idea of how to indent. Although we all started using "*", some people believe that you follow a "*" with a "**", while others believe you should use ":*", and others still believe that you should use "*:", however, others belive that the "*" be completly removed and we should follow it with "::". In any of these cases, how do you follow up that? With another "*" or ":"? Before or after? I really don't understand why if everyone starts a discussion with all bullets, everyone can't finish it with all bullets. So, I apologize if you found it difficult to read, since I was doing the best I could.
  • I agree that we should merge Category: User en-sc and Category: User en-gb-sct to Category: User en-sco, per previous convention, since Category: User en-sc would be inappropriate because it applies to Seychellois English, a different dialect. Taric25 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is why I want to delete all of the stupid, nationalistic categories of English on Wikipedia. There is no such thing as Scottish English, nor is there any such thing as British English, American English, Australian English, South African English, Irish English, Canadian English, Singaporean English, Malaysian English, or any other variety that I missed. Scots (ISO 639-3 code "sco") is not the same thing, and it is already covered under Category:User sco; all of the other variations are a load of hooey. I eventually planned to nominate all of them for upmerge into Category:User en, but this little catfight has brought the issue to a head. User:Taric25 is being unreasonable because I have NEVER seen anyone discussing a Seychellois form of English (in fact, the very term itself, Seychellois, is French, not English), and User:Mais oui! is being unreasonable because until less than a week ago, there was no user category for this at all, and now there are two (there would be none if the sc cat had not been created). This is a perfect example of why userbox creation desperately needs to be dissociated from user category creation. Delete both, and take all of the national variations with them. If both are not deleted, I would prefer to retain Category:User en-sc simply because there are a lot more people who speak English with a Scotch brogue than speak English with a Seychellian accent (whatever that may sound like). At the very least, there is at least an article on Scottish English that describes the accent; there is not an article on Seychellian English, and I doubt that one could be constructed that would survive an AfD. English may be an official language of the nation, but only 4.9% of the population speaks the language. (about 400 people, given the data at Demographics of Seychelles.) It's simply not a valid position to argue. Horologium t-c 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In case you're unaware, there are such things as Scottish English, British English, American English, Australian English, etc. Notice the blue links? Click on the articles, and you can read all about them. Also, it is not unreasonable that we use "sc" for Seychelles. English is an offical language of the country, so it doesn't matter how many people speak it natively. (Demographic information seldomly includes ESL speakers.) In addition, it's the ISO code, a verifable, reliable source. Also, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I've never heard of it, we can't use "sc" for Scotland just because we've never heard of Seychellois English. Plus, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing, "We've deleted other articles in Category:Wikipedia articles, so this needs to go too." is not a valid reason for deletion. Have you seen Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages? Taric25 03:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, "we do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this" has no weight when it comes to deletion, so please provide an argument for deletion on the basis of actual policies and/or guidelines rather than the use of a somewhat subjective, "there is at least an article on Scottish English that describes the accent; there is not an article on Seychellian English, and I doubt that one could be constructed that would survive an AfD". Taric25 03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)There are articles about the pronunciation differences and word choices, but the ISO 639-3 system, which currently includes 7,589 languages, identifies precisely three variations of English; English language (ISO 639-3 classification "eng"; we use the ISO 639-1 class of "en" because disambiguation is not required in this case); Scots (ISO 639-3 classification of "sco"); and Yinglish (ISO 639-3 classification of "yib"). No other dialects are recognized by the International Organisation for Standardisation, which is a fairly damning statement in and of itself. I am also quite aware of the overarching languages debate. Anyone who participates in the WP:UCFD discussions is aware of my efforts to clean up and restructure Category:Wikipedians by language, and you might want to review some of the discussions beginning last month (starting on August 17) before you assume that I am unfamiliar with user categorization and languages; I have been far more active in that discussion that you have, with your parochial interest in one version of the language spoken by less than 100,000 people (assuming that every one of the 82,000 people in the Seychelles speaks a grammatically distinct version of English). When discussing languages, the ISO 639 categories are relevant, not the ISO 3166 codes. My argument is neither Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I've never heard of it, which are in any case opinions of a single user in an essay, not Wikipedia policy. And yes, I am familiar with Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages, and have been slowly working my way through it, eliminating unnecessary user categories added by people who create userboxes and insist on adding categories to all of them. I have little or no objection to userboxes, but when the userbox spills into categorization, I am likely to oppose it. Category:Wikipedians by language is unwieldy enough with recognized languages; it doesn't need to be clogged up with more cruft. Before I began nominating cats for deletions and merges, there were more than 70 different categories for English (not including the valid Category:User sco or Yinglish, which still does not have a usercat), and virtually all of them were added by userboxes with appended categories. Horologium t-c 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Horologium, I agree that if kept, we're creating a hybrid name per consensus of this discussion (if consensus can be found). I see that you prefer deletion, but if there is no consensus to delete, which do you prefer? en-sc, en-gb-sc, en-sco, sco, or some other name? And please scroll up to see my initial questions on this (I realise that they may be lost in the many lengthy responses : ) - I'd like to know your thoughts/responses, as well. - jc37 04:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Horologium, if you believe that dialect userboxes have no place on Wikipedia, then you are in the wrong discussion, because that is not the issue of this discussion. The issue is whether we should use "en-sc", "en-gb-sct", or "en-sco". I can verify that Scottish English is a dialect of English with a reliable source. SIL shows that one of the dialects of English is Lowland Scottish. [3] (In Scotland the Scots language [ISO 639-2 sco] is called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic [ISO 639-1 gd] spoken by some in the Highlands and Islands [especially the Hebrides].). I can also verify from the same relaible source that Scots is a seperate language. [4] Also, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#That's only a guideline/essay, "WP:EXAMPLE is an essay, not policy" has no weight when it comes to deletion, so please provide an argument for deletion based on the verification of a reliable source, rather than the somewhat subjective shorthand "cruft", per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it. So if there is no consensus to delete or merge with Scots, which do you prefer (assuming you have a relaible source to verify your choice)?: en-sc, en-gb-sct, or en-sco? Taric25 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Taric, I think at this point I need to respectfully suggest that you might want to chill out. I appreciate your enthusiasm is wanting to find the best name possible, and that there have been some less-than-civil comments in this discussion. But imho, the above post was a bit past the point of WP:AGF. While I have in the past disagreed with User:Horologium on specifics of implementation, I've found he's a well-meaning editor, who appears to be at the very least decently versed in policies and guidelines. He's also been entrenched in the language category organisation discussions, and so would be a good person to ask about the "big picture". His opinion about the national dialect cats is not a non-viable one, it's merely not one that has found consensus. One other thing, commenters in UCFD discussions may indeed suggest something different than what the nominator requests. I hope this helps. - jc37 06:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Gaidhlig has nothing to do with this, it is a completely separate language related to Irish, Welsh, Breton and Manx and not part of the same family as English, Scots and Doric. Even within Scotland, English varies, influenced by the local language. The English spoken in the South is what is being argued about here, Scottish English as it tends to be influenced more by Scots. In Aberdeen, (I'm sure there's an official name for it, but Aberdonian will do) Aberdonian is heavily influenced by Doric and in the Highlands and Islands, people tend to throw in (what appears to be) random words of Gaidhlig (A Scottish version of Franglais called Highland English). These varieties of English most definitely exist (I'm sure some linguist can do the research to find sources) and although distinct, just like Americans and English people, we can all understand each-other on the whole. For me, the main reasons against the userboxes with the gb are that the country is the UK not Great Britain and it's just too long and messy. I'd not be using the en-sco box myself as I'd be wanting a Highland English one, but am in no position to create the box as I messed up the only one I tried. By the way, this whole topic is becoming massive, it would probably help clarify the situation if someone wanted to list everyone's preferences clearly with no replies or reasons attached (while keeping the bulky bit too).MRM 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We've done that before, and in this case, it sounds like a good idea. I'm going to close this discussion as a "work-in-progess" no consensus, and relist/start a new nomination based on what we've seen here so far. I'll add a link to this discussion, suggesting that it be considered when closing the new one. - jc37 06:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to N.W.A. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per consensus at this debate, we determined that "Wikipedians who listen to XXX" do not promote collaboration.

• Delete as nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (glad to be back around) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. More "category appended to userbox" nonsense. Horologium t-c 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/March_2007#0-level_categories.2C_part_2_.26_3
• Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/March_2007#Category:User_en-0

Delete; why categorize by non-language? See also relevant discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some way of indicating that a user does not understand English is definitely useful, but a category could only be of practical benefit if there was a reason to search for all users who do not speak English. I can't imagine anyone wanting to do that so agree the category should be deleted. A userbox (or a user/talkpage note to the same effect) ia enough to let those dealing with a particular user know that they do not understand English. WjBscribe 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Categorizing people by what they don't understand is in no way helpful. Per WJB, a userbox or note on the user page is enough. --Kbdank71 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - To quote what I said last time, "User categories are to let users find people-Yet I can think of no circumstance when someone would need to seek out anyone who can't speak English. Knowing if someone doesn't speak English is very important, but a userbox can accomplish this without the category. Please tell me what we would no longer be able to do if this category were deleted". VegaDark (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — User language categories should never have "0" levels. Taric25 16:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per VegaDark & Taric25. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The userbox may be useful, but I don't see how the category may be. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JohnManuel templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as single-user category. Alksub 01:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Though it might be nice to listify to the user's talk page. - jc37 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User dni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User dni-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These categories are for speakers of the D'ni language, a fictional constructed language. The language is not an ISO-recognised language and "dni" is actually the ISO 639-3 code for Lower Grand Valley Dani (see Dani people). I propose that we either:

1. Delete these categories as being too limited in scope to have any substantial collaborative value, or
2. Merge the subcat into the parent, Rename to something like Category:Wikipedians who understand D'ni or Category:Wikipedians interested in the Myst franchise, and move out of Category:Wikipedians by language.

• Delete or merge & rename as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no collaborative value. Picaroon (t) 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who understand D'ni. I wouldn't oppose a rename to Category:User d'ni, but the lack of an iso code (apparently our current convention standard), has me leaning to the first rename. In looking over the article, and some of its links, I see several extensive dictionaries and grammars, including one at WikiBooks. So I'm opposed to deletion, as the subject seem notable enough. (This constructed language appears to have more to it than just a few words or phrases.) Also, UpMerge Category:User dni-1. (Numeric babel breakdown could be re-subcatted if the category grows.) - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, constructed languages serve no purpose in collaboration. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename per nom and Picaroon. The category doesn't seem particularly harmful or useful to the project, but on the whole I see no reason to delete it. (Anyway, who knows, maybe someone someday will need to find an editor who understands D'ni for some reason. Stranger things have happened.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per demon. --Kbdank71 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To restate: Rename to Category:Wikipedians who understand D'ni. Since there is an article on the language, and several semi-related articles, this should be kept, though renamed to a more appropriate name. Also, UpMerge Category:User dni-1. (Numeric babel breakdown could be re-subcatted if the category grows.)- jc37 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. This is a toughie for me. I am convinced that this should not be left as is, but I'm going to do nothing for now. I would like to see a restructure of some sort happen to resolve this in the next month or so. If not, I would probably be willing to delete the category at that time. I don't see any point in doing a simple rename now when a restructure or deletion is really what is called for and such work would just cause more wasted work for me and AMbot. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public domain license (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) rename to Category:User public domain release

As per comment at Category talk:Public domain license. "Public domain" is a pseudo license, it is really a release of copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as the one who left the comment. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - IANAL, but I'm somewhat confused by the inclusion criteria for this category. I would presume that there is a difference between: Multi-licensing (Template:MultiLicensePD) and just Public domain (Template:Public domain release; Template:User pd; Template:User Publicdomain). Also this comment really makes me think that this should not be a category: "Note: Many users use this pseudo-license in a restricted fashion. Check their pages for more information." A category this big should not require me to go through every member to figure out whiether they should actually belong to some subgrouping of the category's criteria. Maybe this should be broken into subcats, but for now, it's a mess of inaccuracy (and incredibly confusing). - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - per my comments above. If no consensus to delete, rename to something like: Category:Wikipedians who release at least some of their contributions into the public domain. (Per the category introductory statement.) - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making subcats sounds like a good idea to me -- that way people can use them strictly so there's no need for customized templates. But let's not delete this until we have a replacement up, eh? CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not sure what else to say... Keeping something that's inaccurate, confusing, and may possibly have legal issues, just because there isn't a "replacement", sounds like an incredibly bad idea. - jc37 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jc37. What is the reason to have a category for this ... that is, for someone to look through users who license some of their contributions into the public domain? I can understand an interest in the contributions (particularly images) of a specific user, but I don't see how this category is useful. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributors maintain copyright on their contributions, revoking their right to release content under a particular license, or into the public domain, is tantamount to copyright infringement. I see now that there are some problems with this category, but deleting it outright should be out of the question due to legal and ethical concerns. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does deleting the category amount to "revoking their right to release content under a particular license"? It only means that they can't express that fact through this category; they can still express it on their userpage. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spoke too hastily, I don't necessarily equate the proposed deletion to revocation, but it does interfere. Since the category is used by multiple templates, which in turn are utilized by hundreds of people, I don't think it is fair to favor deletion over a workaround, like subcategorization. The existence of this category is further supported by the hierarchical basis behind Category:Wikipedia copyright. Deletion would imply that the licensing is invalid, which is an important concern, but also a matter best left for discussion in another forum. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The primary utility of any category lies in assisting navigation, but I can't think of a reason someone might want or need to browse through this type of category. Since deleting the category would still leave the templates on individual editors' userpages, I don't see that it would significantly interfere with release of content under a particular license. Even if a lot of people use only the category and none of the more detailed templates, the vagueness of this category prevents us from knowing exactly what part of their contributions they license into the public domain. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category is currently an intersect between users who release all text contributions into the public domain, editors who release "all content" (text & images) into the public domain, and editors who release all minor contributions into the public domain. Any user's preference can be identified by looking at the template used on their userpage, so even if this category is overly vague it remains useful. Its deletion would necessitate the creation of a new category(ies). I think that the best approach would be to keep this category and modify templates to link to several subcats. Note also that this was not intended as a proposal for the outright deletion of the category. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:User Dsrt. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User dsrt interest to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Deseret alphabet

Nominator's rationale: This is a category populated by a userbox that expresses an interest in the alphabet (not necessarily a knowledge of it). So, it should follow the naming convention of the remainder of Category:Wikipedians by interest. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a "contructed language" (or rather a constructed alphabet). As such we have at least a few more specific potential homes for this catgory: Category:Wikipedians by constructed language; Category:Wikipedians by writing system; and Category:Wikipedians by language interest. As such, Weak oppose the rename, though dropping the word "interest" from the title is probably a good idea. - jc37 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Either rename the category as per Black Falcon's suggestion, or rename it as Category:User Dsrt (the ISO 15924 classification), as a subset of Category:Wikipedians by writing system and reword the verbiage of the userbox to remove the word "interest". I think the first is a better idea, since it requires less work, doesn't monkey with the appearance of the template, and because there is no apparent actual usage of this writing system. I would oppose moving it to the constructed language category, because it's not a new language, just a different form of written English. I also oppose moving it into Category:Wikipedians by language interest; I'd like to see that category go away, since it consists of three two categories, which are both useful (and should be retained) as subcats of an obscurely named category. I would not think of looking for a translator in Category:Wikipedians by language interest. Horologium t-c 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with renaming to Category:User Dsrt. Category:User dsrt. (Though note lower case.) Incidentally, the article on Deseret makes it clear that this is a constructed language alphabet. (As opposed to a naturally evolving one.) Category:Wikipedians by language interest was originally created for interest in specific languages, or facets of language (such as writing systems). Contrast to Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, which is presumably for those interested in language, linguistics, or whatever. The idea being to remove most of the non-babel named cats from Category:Wikipedians by language. - jc37 04:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with renaming to Category:User Dsrt (writing systems cats are capitalised) or Category:User dsrt is that the userbox which populates the category does not suggest an actual knowledge of the alphabet. It just states that the users are interested in the alphabet. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)Comment My suggestion to name it with the capital letter is to maintain the standard established in Category: Wikipedians by writing system, which uses initial capital letters; the ISO 15924 standard also uses an initial capital. I also read the article on Deseret, which is why I understand that it is only a writing system instead of an entire language. I am still opposed to moving it to the constructed language cat because it is only the orthography that differs from standard English. Moving it to constructed languages could open a whole can of worms over languages that are the same except for the writing system used for them. Examples are Serbian/Croatian, Moldovan/Romanian, and all the fun varieties of Chinese. See the extremely acrimonious debate over the proposal to close the Moldovan Wikipedia at Meta-wiki; I would prefer to stay away from that sort of "discussion" (and I use the term loosely) on en.wikipedia. IMNSHO, the best way to remove the non-ISO babel cats from the languages section is to delete them or move them entirely from Category:Wikipedians by language, not to stuff them inside a subcategory. YMMV; it's likely that I lack the requisite flexibility on this issue. Horologium t-c 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. I was presuming lowercase per Category:Wikipedians by language. And you're right, there's a difference between a contrusted language and a constructed alphabet. {Cyrillic comes to mind, for example.) Avoiding controversy, when unnecessary, would seem to be a good idea. And finally, a cat which involves language may be valid, even if there isn't a convenient iso code for it. But subcategorisation is probably beyond the scope of this discussion (I seem to recall discussing this on a talk page sometime ago...) - jc37 06:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry folks, every time I try to sort this I get a headache. Please provide some concise discussion else I'll need to close this as no consensus.--After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm interested in lots of things, none of which needs a category. --Kbdank71 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:User Dsrt (apparently its iso abbreviation). Userbox text can be edited - Be bold : ) - jc37 06:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aspergian Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome

Nominator's rationale: "Aspergian" is autistic community jargon for people with Asperger syndrome, and is not even a widely-accepted term within that community. szyslak 09:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the name as it is. Groups choose their own name, period. CeilingCrash 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Groups can call themselves whatever they want, but categorization is not the same thing as self-identification. Horologium t-c 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for people who like a single radio station. Do we want one of these for every radio station? Categories for people who like specific radio stations are too specific to foster collaboration. For things as specific as this, collaboration would be accomplised better just by posting on the article's talk page. If kept, sets precedent for creating thousands more like-categories for other radio stations, which I don't think we want. VegaDark (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coolgamer 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Discrimination members, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is not a collection of indiscriminate information! Rename per nom.--WaltCip 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and rename - I'm not aware of any objection. Addhoc 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As per current convention, someone should ask the WikiProject whether they prefer "members" or "participants". - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The userbox uses "member", if that counts for anything ... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but a single bold userbox creator may not represent the consensus of the whole WikiProject. - jc37 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC) - As per jc37, I would like to see the WP consulted with a report back here before rendering a decision.[reply]

Notified – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no good reason to have a category for members of a wikiproject. That is the whole purpose of having a list of members. Besides, the move option seems pretty pointless.--Sefringle^Talk 03:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Single-user category. Delete Alksub 00:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the user, who hasn't been active since June, can demonstrate a need for this. szyslak 09:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Does not meet naming conventions, and as this is (probably) a joke it would not be useful to place it in category:wikipedians by profession. Delete Alksub 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians in the French military history task force. Seems someone decided to give the task force a nickname : ) - jc37 10:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is populated by two userboxes, both of which are used by one user only. The first – User:UBX/Privateer – is a joke userbox; the second – User:UBX/WPMILHIST French military history task force – is a userbox for the French military history task force. Since both are used by only one editor and I'm unconvinced of the value of membership categories for specific task forces, I think this category should be deleted without renaming. Someone can always create a category for members of the French MILHIST task force later on. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That would also be perfectly fine with me. - jc37 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Ontario Hockey League fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes the following:

Note: A request has been left with AMbot requesting that these categories be tagged.

This is a parent category for fans of individual Canadian junior ice hockey teams. The majority of its subcategories (14 of 20) contain only a userbox but no actual users. We should not preemptively create categories unless we are certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... these categories have been effectively empty since February. Since these are junior ice hockey teams and since there are currently only nine actual users distributed between these 21 categories, I propose that we do one of the following:

1. Delete all categories as lacking collaborative value.
2. Selectively delete only the zero-user categories (i.e. those that contain only the userbox).
3. Upmerge all subcategories to the parent category, which will take care of the issue of overcategorisation and category clutter and also reduce the WP:MYSPACE aspect of specific "fan" categories. The favoured team of each individual user will still be identified by the userbox on their userpage.

• Upmerge all, selectively delete, or delete all as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - After looking over Ontario Hockey League, I see the notability, but not sure if we should start having categories for all the junior sports variations (such as the other divisions of the Canadian Hockey League; or Little League Baseball for that matter). However, if kept, the subcats should be UpMerged to Category:Wikipedian Canadian Hockey League fans. Category:Wikipedian Western Hockey League fans and its subcats should also be added to this nom. - jc37 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was waiting for the results of this nomination before proceeding with a nomination for the WHL category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/upmerge all to Category:User basic. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User bas to Category:User basic

Also rename Category:User bas-1 to Category:User basic-1, Category:User bas-2 to Category:User basic-2, Category:User bas-3 to Category:User basic-3, and Category:User bas-4 to Category:User basic-4

Nominator's rationale: "bas" is the ISO 639-3 code for the Basaa language, spoken in Cameroon. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Basic is not a language that is used by any part of wikipedia as far as I know. Therefore these categories are not usefull for collaboration and should all be deleted. Of course, users can continue to add the useboxes to their pages, but there is no need for any categories. --Bduke 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I think Basic is obsolete now. But I'll strike out that comment if there's anyone who can prove it isn't.--WaltCip 03:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given the above comments, I also support deletion. Reducing the number of obsolete categories will make the parent category more navigable and useful for editors. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose deletion. To those who look to the user cats for collaborative use, I can't see how these cats cannot be seen as useful for collaborating on BASIC and its many associated articles. "Obsolete", or even "archaic" does not equal unencyclopedic! Support rename to Category:User basic, per nom. - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Until I read the comment above from jc37, I had no idea there were so many articles on BASIC. In passing I suggest there are far too many, but I want to concentrate on collaboration. For computer languages, this can be in one of two senses. First, there is using the language to support the technical aspects of wikipedia. I do not think BASIC is used for any code here. Second, there is the collaboration on all these articles. The first, if needed, would be helped by knowing how proficient people were with BASIC. Since it is not used, all these categories should be deleted. The second just requires Category:Wikipedians interested in BASIC, so I withdraw my "delete all" above. and suggest that all these categories be merged into Category:Wikipedians interested in BASIC, unless of course someone can show me that a proficiency in programming in BASIC helps Wikipedia. --Bduke 07:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't necessarily disagree that the various proficiency-based numeric prog lang subcats could be merged into the parent of each (though I'm not sure as to the value of such a merge). However, many wikipedians use the babel template for this, and I don't think that we should so fully change the name as to make it less compatible with the template (or with the other programming cats). So first choice is to rename all as I noted above, second choice would be to upmerge all to Category:User basic. - jc37 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, if you do not like Category:Wikipedians interested in BASIC, upmerge all to Category:User basic. We only need one category. --Bduke 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support that upmerge along with the rename. As for WaltCip's question of obsolescence, I know that UBASIC is still popular in number-theory circles (although I rather imagine it's waning). CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ok, to restate: first choice is to rename all to Category:User basic (-1; -2; etc), second choice would be to upmerge all to Category:User basic. I am strongly opposed to "interested in". - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to Category:User basic (first choice) or Rename All as per nom. I, too, do not support the idea of moving these into the user interest categories, because they indicate a specific knowledge, rather than a general interest, and because there is no reason to move it out of a category that includes every other programming language, simply because it is not commonly used at this point. It's pretty obvious that I am all for deleting excess categories, but I see the utility of this category. (I don't necessarily agree with the babelization of it, but that is easily addressed by an upmerge. Horologium t-c 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all to Category:User basic. I dropped the suggestion of the user interest title, as it was clear there was no consnesus. Nevertheless indicating a specific knowledge of a programming language is only important id that language is used on wikioedia and thus it would help the project. That basis is not now commonly used should not be a consideration. I have scored out some of my comments above to clarify my position now this nomination has been relisted. --Bduke 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User for-N into Category:User for-4

Nominator's rationale: 'Native' categories do not make sense for programming languages (in this case, Fortran). I suspect that the intent was to convey the idea that these users are experts in the language. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why not propose all of them for deletion? I have been a Fortran programmer for 40 years but I do not see my knowledge is any use to Wikipedia. There are some languages that are needed by the project and categories will assist that collaboration, but Fortran is not one of them (nor basic either - see nomination above). --Bduke 23:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't have enough technical knowledge of programming languages to judge (or explain in a nomination) which are or are not useful. This nomination and the BASIC one above are both essentially minor maintenance. Perhaps you would like to nominate for deletion any programming language categories that are not useful? Since the BASIC cats are all nominated, that can still turn into a deletion discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do, when less busy. I may let this go the full course. --Bduke 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the links listed at 6 speedy cats, specifically, Native language programmer categories. - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• With the same rational as I use above in the discussion on the BASIC categories, I propose that this category be renamed Category:Wikipedians interested in Fortran. Later we can propose merging all the others into this category. I know Fortran is used for lots of odd things. I still use a CGI script I wrote in Fortran, but I do not think a proficiency in Fortran is going to assist the development of the code base for Wikipedia. --Bduke 07:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I strongly oppose renaming to "interested in". See also my comments under bas, above. - jc37 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom, or delete, as per jc37. I strongly oppose deleting all of the Fortran cats, because while it may not be used for Wikipedia, there are a number of articles where knowledge of Fortran would be helpful, as it was widely used during its heyday. Since this is a specific "Knowledge" cat (as opposed to "I use Windows XP" or "...Mac OSX" or "...Amiga OS"), it might very well be useful for someone creating or expanding an article about a specific application. Horologium t-c 20:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If you do not like Category:Wikipedians interested in Fortran, so be it, but I see no reason to have a whole range of categories. Why would someone in Category:User for-4 be more usefull for editing an article than someone in Category:User for-3. I now suggest we rename this one to Category:User fortran and then later propose that the others be merged there. I still have doubts about the value for collaboration. I have programmed in Fortran for over 40 years and still do so on a regular basis, but I see no reason to add myself to any of these categories. I have edited dozens of articles on programs written in Fortran but a knowledge of the language has never been important. It is the methods and the purpose of the code that matters. --Bduke 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am all for merging the cats into a single cat, but your earlier suggestion was for outright deletion of all of them, to which I am opposed. I think that merging the subcats of each programming language into single cats is a good idea, but it appears that a consensus was developed to use Babel conventions for the programming cats. If consensus has changed, that is a good thing, but I don't want to delete all of the Fortran cats. Horologium t-c 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Babel conventions are fine for real languages as expertise is needed for translation. It is appropriate also for computer languages that are used on the technical side of wikipedia and mediawiki, but this does not apply to Fortran. --Bduke 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To clarify: Delete/Merge to Category:User for-4 per Native language programmer categories. I am opposed to "interested in", and I think discussion of merging this and the other fortran cats should be a new/separate discussion. - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I withdrew my proposal of "interersted in" as there was clearly no consensus and now agree with jc37. Let us clarify matters with this delete/merge and then start a new discussion for all Fortan categories. --Bduke 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename all to Category:User regex (et al). Several have made it clear that this is useful for those who use WP:AWB, and as such it shouldn't be deleted. However, it obviously needs a rename for clarity, and "regex" is used in the article "Regular expressions". - jc37 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User re to Category:User regex

Nominator's rationale: According to the article "regular expression", regular expression is shortened to "regex". Unlike the regular language categories, programming language categories need not be limited to 2-3 letters, and I think that "regex" is less ambiguous than "re". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This nomination also applies to the following subcategoreis: Category:User re-1, Category:User re-2, Category:User re-3, Category:User re-4, which should be renamed as above. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Unless I am missing something, this is just about a single function type within programming languages. How is this different than "This user is a GOTO programmer"? If no consensus to delete, Rename all to Category:User regex (et al: regex-1, etc), per nom. - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jc37. Although I initially suggested renaming, Jc37 seems to be correct that this is not an actual programming language. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sorry, I can't close this one.... Knowing how much regex is used by WP:AWB users, and knowing how much people are always looking for help with regex, I think that these should not be deleted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Jc37 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AM. (or rename if that's consensus) People with knowledge of regex is helpful for people who use AWB. --Kbdank71 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename user re to user regex, merge all others into it. AM's comment suggests that users who understand regexes could be helpful to users of AWB. However, I don't see the need for multiple categories listing different levels of adeptness at this, since it isn't a whole programming language, just a function. Picaroon (t) 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep categorized at multiple levels. I am but an egg at regex and I sometimes have a very hard time understanding the most advanced dudes when they answer my naiive questions :) ... Knowing who is intermediate is goodness I suspect, just as with many other technical proficiencies. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Alittihad fans to Category:Wikipedian Al-Ittihad (Jeddah) fans

Nominator's rationale: There are at least four football clubs named Al-Ittihad, see Al-Ittihad. The userbox which populates this category makes clear that this category is for the Saudi Arabian club. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hardly endorsing collaborative writing of any sort. Sebi _[talk] 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:23rdian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not particularly useful, no collaborative value. Picaroon (t) 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, or Merge to Category:Discordian Wikipedians. Not particularly useful or relevant, but the UCfD and DRV on that category was rather spirited. Horologium t-c 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per Horologium. This seems to be merely a category for users who believe (or have an affinity for the idea) that the number 23 has special significance. It is not an actual 'philosophy' from what I can tell. In any case, it is a part of Discordianism, so there is no need to have duplicate categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - The userbox is fine. Not sure if the category is necessary for a single article. (Could be persuaded to keep.) Oppose merging to discordianism, since belief in one aspect of a philosophy may not necessarily mean belief in the "whole package". If kept, it should, however, be a subcat Category:Discordian Wikipedians. - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as we should've with Discordians. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all by level. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:User fortepiano-1 to Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-1 or Merge into Category:Wikipedian pianists-1 or Merge/rename into Category:Wikipedian fortepianists
• Rename Category:User fortepiano-2 to Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-2 or Merge into Category:Wikipedian pianists-2 or Merge/rename into Category:Wikipedian fortepianists
• Rename Category:User fortepiano-3 to Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-3 or Merge into Category:Wikipedian pianists-3 or Merge/rename into Category:Wikipedian fortepianists
• Rename Category:User fortepiano-4 to Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-4 or Merge into Category:Wikipedian pianists-4 or Merge/rename into Category:Wikipedian fortepianists

These categories should either be renamed to conform to the convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument, merged into the corresponding "pianist" categories, or merged into a single "fortepianists" category (the four nominated categories contain only ten users).

I think two questions are relevant to choosing the appropriate option:

1. In terms of the collaborative potential of these categories, is there any substantial difference between a piano and a fortepiano?
2. Is there any use, in terms of facilitating collaboration, to subdividing users by their proficiency in playing the fortepiano?

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that any fortepiano player can play a piano, but not every piano player can play every fortepiano (if it has hand buttons instead of pedals, say). I consider this distinction to be pretty meaningless, however, and would suggest they be merged into Wikipedian pianists-(X).--Mike Selinker 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge each to the same level of pianists - While the fortepiano is a specific instrument distinct from the modern piano, this is more an affectation of music teachers to call the modern piano by an older name. See also this discussion. I think we should turn all of these into category redirects. - jc37 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:User tangent piano-1 to Category:Wikipedian tangent piano players-1 or Upmerge
• Rename Category:User tangent piano-2 to Category:Wikipedian tangent piano players-2 or Upmerge
• Rename Category:User tangent piano-3 to Category:Wikipedian tangent piano players-3 or Upmerge
• Rename Category:User tangent piano-4 to Category:Wikipedian tangent piano players-4 or Upmerge

These categories should either be renamed to conform to the naming of the parent category (Category:Wikipedian tangent piano players) or, given that there are only 3 users distributed among the 5 categories (all in the lower-proficiency categories), upmerged into the parent category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge all - Historical instruments not in general use probably don't need the babel breakdown. (If for no other reason than, as the nom stated, there are typically few members.) - jc37 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. A lack of usage of these categories shows that they're not actively being used for the purpose of user categories--fostering collaboration. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As has often been said, collaboration need not be direct, but may be indirect as well. Else Wikipedia wouldn't have such things as admins, vandalism/new page patrollers, and for that matter, user pages. - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User VG-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The parent category of this category was recently renamed to Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors (see September 7 discussion). So, I propose that we do one of two things with this category (and its associated templates):

1. Merge this category into the parent by modifying Template:User VG-3 and similarly edit the remaining templates (Template:User VG, Template:User VG-1, and Template:User VG-2).
2. Rename to Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors-3 and edit the remaining templates to categorise in Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors, Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors-1, and Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors-2, respectively.

• Merge or rename as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge all to parent. Else, Rename, per nom. - jc37 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be useless. Unsure what this is supposed to even mean. "Watch" is also improperly capitalized. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think that the userbox expresses a preference for watching online videos taken from cameras attached to animals (i.e. viewed from the animal's point of view). In any case, delete as lacking potential to foster collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I immediately assumed POV meant "Privately Owned Vehicle" (military usage) and imagined drive-through zoos such as Lion Country Safari. Looking at the userbox helped clarify the purpose, but not enough to justify such an odd category. Horologium t-c 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is this supposed to be about? sounds perverse (Palmiped 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - Userbox notice is fine (though barely), the category is not. - jc37 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/rename all as nominated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User pro into Category:User prolog
• Rename Category:User pro-1 into Category:User prolog-1
• Rename Category:User pro-2 into Category:User prolog-2
• Rename Category:User pro-3 into Category:User prolog-3
• Rename Category:User pro-4 into Category:User prolog-4

Nominator's rationale: "prolog" is the less ambiguous option ("pro" could be confused with 'professional'). See the discussion below this one for context. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. - jc37 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy close, reopen to propose a reverse merge (see above). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User prolog into Category:User pro

Nominator's rationale: The two categories are redundant (both for users who are familiar with Prolog). I am proposing merging "prolog" into "pro", rather than the reverse, because the latter category was created earlier and is more complete, containing 4 subcats. However, it may be worth considering a reverse merge since "prolog" is less ambiguous, whereas "pro" could be confused with 'professional'. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per nom. prolog seems the clearer name. - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User dv-mahl into Category:User dv

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for speakers of Mahal, which is nothing more than a regional dialect of Dhivehi. It is not a distinct ISO-recognised language and the category contains only one user (both userpages belong to the same user). There is no utility in having separate categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Another vanity creation. Horologium t-c 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:User didgeridoo-1 to Category:Wikipedian didgeridoo players-1
• Rename Category:User didgeridoo-2 to Category:Wikipedian didgeridoo players-2
• Rename Category:User didgeridoo-3 to Category:Wikipedian didgeridoo players-3
• Rename Category:User didgeridoo-4 to Category:Wikipedian didgeridoo players-4

To conform to the title of the parent category, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all as nominated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User trumpet-1 into Category:Wikipedian trumpet players-1
• Merge Category:User trumpet-2 into Category:Wikipedian trumpet players-2
• Merge Category:User trumpet-3 into Category:Wikipedian trumpet players-3
• Merge Category:User trumpet-4 into Category:Wikipedian trumpet players-4

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian trumpet players). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User tuba-3 into Category:Wikipedian tuba players-3

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the parent category, Category:Wikipedian tuba players, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Chevy Racing fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedian Dodge Racing fans and Category:Wikipedian Ford Racing fans
These categories do not foster collaboration. Despite the titles of the categories and the fact that they are subcategories of Category:Wikipedian auto racing fans, they are populated entirely by userboxes that state: "This user is a Chevy/Dodge/Ford fan". In essence, the userboxes (and thus the users in these categories) merely express a liking toward one of three common brands of vehicle. Expressions of this type of preference do not require categories. Please note that I am not nominating three similar categories that focus specifically on auto racing vehicles.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the categories do not foster collaboration. Who keeps making them anyway? Sebi _[talk] 05:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No different than being a fan of a computer based on company/brand, such as Apple/Mac, HP, IBM, or whatever. Eventually listing every company/brand in existance. (Category:Wikipedians by product interest by company or brand anyone? Ugh. Seems like a bad idea to me.) - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User sme to Category:User se
• Rename Category:User sme-1 to Category:User se-1
• Rename Category:User sme-2 to Category:User se-2
• Rename Category:User sme-3 to Category:User se-3
• Rename Category:User sme-4 to Category:User se-4
• Rename Category:User sme-5 to Category:User se-5
• Rename Category:User sme-N to Category:User se-N

These are categories for Northern Sami, which has the ISO 639-1 code "se" and the ISO 639-3 code "sme". Merge/rename to standardise with the rest of Category:Wikipedians by language, where 639-1 codes are (almost) always used in preference to 639-3 codes. Note also that the category for translators is Category:Translators se-en. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename as per nom. Horologium t-c 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User sitar-1 to Category:Wikipedian sitar players-1

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the title of the parent category, Category:Wikipedian sitar players, and the general convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. Since there is only one user in the category, and the collaborative value of subcategorisation the category may not be entirely apparent, it may be worth considering upmerging to the parent category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User sax-4 into Category:Wikipedian saxophonists-4

Nominator's rationale: To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian saxophonists). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This has already been nominated before, along with some other possible musical categories, but no actions seems to have been made, because the discussion was favoring into a delete, thus leaving in no consensus. ~Iceshark7 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the previous discussion was that it had too many disparate categories, and the discussion over potential renames, merges, and deletions was what doomed it. This is more tightly focused, and has the additional benefit of having a precedent set for naming of the musical instrument cats. You had a great idea, but it was too sweeping in scope at the time. You were ahead of your time. (grin) Horologium t-c 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Horologium t-c 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian Manchester City fans into Category:Wikipedian Manchester City F.C. fans

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the two categories is identical; however, the title of the nominated category deviates from the article title (Manchester City F.C.) and does not conform to the general naming convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User Autoit Script to Category:User autoit

Nominator's rationale: To drop the unnecessary "script" and per the convention of most subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by programming language. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. See also AutoIt. (It seems it creates scripts, but itself is a prog lang.) - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User ASP-1 to Category:User asp-1

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the capitalisation of the parent category, Category:User asp. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. It seems to be current practice to not capitalise the programming lanuages in these category names (per babel, I suppose). - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User mpl to Category:User maple

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the title of the template, ((User maple)). Also, "mpl" is the ISO 639-3 code for Middle Watut (see Watut languages), so renaming will avoid any possible confusion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Bendigo Bombers fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for fans of the Bendigo Bombers, an Australian rules football club, that contains a userbox and an article talk page (which shouldn't be there) but no actual users. Even the creator of the userbox and category is not in the category. We should not preemptively create categories unless we're certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... this category seems to have been effectively empty since September 2006.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hardly endorsing collaborative writing of any sort. Sebi _[talk] 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- under-used, non-collaborative category. - Longhair\^talk 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Binghamton Mets fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for fans of the Binghamton Mets, a minor league baseball team, that contains two userbox directory pages but no actual users. Even the creator of the userbox and category is not in the category. We should not preemptively create categories unless we're certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... this category seems to have been effectively empty since July.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hardly endorsing collaborative writing of any sort. Sebi _[talk] 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Arbil FC fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for fans of Arbil FC that contains a userbox and a userbox directory page but no actual users. Even the creator of the userbox and category is not in the category (and, as far as I could tell, has never been in it). We should not preemptively create categories unless we're certain they will be populated in the immediate future ... this category seems to have been effectively empty since March.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hardly endorsing collaborative writing of any sort. Sebi _[talk] 00:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Babylon fr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This claims to be a category for users who are willing to translate articles from Spanish. However, the category contains the code "fr" for French. The category's single member, User:Jmfayard/User1 is a page requesting translation from English into French. Since this category includes one user (who's been inactive for several months), involves translation from English rather than to English, and seems to have been created to support a test page, I am not suggesting a rename to Category:Translators en-fr.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is apparently a part of the user's sandbox project, to upgrade Wikipedia:Translation (this diff shows the project before the user made it simply a redirect.) It also seems to include Category:Babylon de and Category:Babylon eo. (If they are tagged, I support deleting them as well, for the same reasons.) The user has been inactive since February 2007, and much of this work was in November 2006. If he comes back to work on it, fine, but delete for now. (This could almost probably be speedied under housekeeping.) - jc37 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedily deleted the "de" and "eo" categories (per the housekeeping criterion) as being empty test categories that are redundant to Category:Translators de-en and Category:Translators eo-en, respectively. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User recorder-1 into Category:Wikipedian recorder players-1
• Merge Category:User recorder-2 into Category:Wikipedian recorder players-2

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian recorder players). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the merge. Sebi _[talk] 05:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian high school students - Per the recent closure of the Wikipedians by HS UCFD, this cat should also go. If kept the introduction/inclusion criteria really needs to be re-written. (Note that this nom does not include Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians.) - jc37 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MYSPACE. The mere fact of being a high school student does not provide any information which would be useful for collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This may need to be deleted, but listing people by the high school they attended is different from listing just anyone who's in high school. The previous CfD only addressed the first. -Amarkov moo! 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. Which is partly why this a different, though somewhat semi-related, nomination. - jc37 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree as well. Moreover, I'd argue that listing anyone who is in high school is less useful than listing editors by individual high school. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers - (See also this, this and this.)

There are currently (at least) 4 Mac-related categories:

• Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers

• Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS Classic
• Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS X Server
• Category:Wikipedians who use Mac OS X

The computer cat was the only subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by personal computer. (Which I deleted after moving the Mac cat to Category:Wikipedians by operating system.)

I think we should either delete the first cat, or the latter 3. Either option would still retain one or more categories which would be potentially all-inclusive of all Mac users. I think retaining the latter three is more specific to topic, and would also thus be more useful to collaborative efforts.

Incidentally, I previously restored the last cat from its merging, to join the other two operating system cats, based on some recent discussions about other hardware-related categories (such as by keyboard, processor, and Tablet-PCs).

I do not support a merge, since in most cases, there would be no way to definitively know which OS cat would be appropriate. Users may add/re-add themselves to the appropriate OS of their choice. (And obviously the computer hardware-related userboxes shouldn't have the OS (software-related) cats added to them.)

• Delete Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers, as nominator. - jc37 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. In general, the mere fact of using of a product implies neither an improved ability to contribute to articles about the product nor an encyclopedically-relevant in the subject. One could argue that owners could contribute using their product instruction manuals, but these are mostly available online (moreover, encyclopedia articles should be primarily about the nature and general effect of the product, not its technical specifications). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Black Falcon. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations (See also previous UCFD) - While membership may presume technical expertise (presuming someone else didn't set the system up), the usefulness as a category would seem to be rather limited. - jc37 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The category doesn't actually tell us which operating system each user uses and is thus too vague. The alternative to deletion would be to create a separate category for every possible configuration: that's thousands of possibilities, even if we assume that most systems are not compatible with one another. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User xsl into Category:User xslt

Nominator's rationale: These are categories for users who have knowledge of XSL Transformations. The categories are identical in scope, but I think that "xslt" is a less ambiguous title. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge Category:User xsl to Category:User xslt. Even the userbox on the xsl cat page uses the XSLT form. - jc37 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename Category:User programmer/prog-1 to Category:Wikipedian programmers-1
• Delete or Rename Category:User programmer/prog-2 to Category:Wikipedian programmers-2
• Delete or Rename Category:User programmer/prog-3 to Category:Wikipedian programmers-3
• Delete or Rename Category:User programmer/prog-4 to Category:Wikipedian programmers-4

These are categories for Wikipedian programmers. Since they are not actually "programming language" categories, there is no reason they should start with 'User'. After renaming, create Category:Wikipedian programmers as a parent category. Alternatively, delete all four categories as too vague to be useful. The categories state that the users contained are programmers, but don't specify which programming language(s) they are familiar with.

• Delete (first choice) or rename (second choice) as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The subcats of Category:Wikipedians by programming language are much clearer and more useful. See also the April UCFD for Category:Wikipedian programmers. - jc37 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User pt-B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for speakers of Brazilian Portuguese; it is, in effect, a "dialect" category. However, regional variants of Portuguese are mutually intelligible and the sole user in this category is already in Category:User pt-3, where "pt" is the ISO 639-1 code for Portuguese. The Brazilian variant does not have a corresponding ISO code.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User piano-1 into Category:Wikipedian pianists-1
• Merge Category:User piano-2 into Category:Wikipedian pianists-2
• Merge Category:User piano-3 into Category:Wikipedian pianists-3

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian pianists). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:User guitar-1 into Category:Wikipedian guitarists-1
• Merge Category:User guitar-2 into Category:Wikipedian guitarists-2
• Merge Category:User guitar-3 into Category:Wikipedian guitarists-3
• Merge Category:User guitar-4 into Category:Wikipedian guitarists-4

To eliminate duplicate categorisation and standardise naming with the parent category (Category:Wikipedian guitarists). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Reach for the Top (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who have participated in the game show Reach for the Top. WP:NOT#MYSPACE and any possible collaborative potential is limited to one article, so collaboration can just as easily take place on the article's talk page.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator's reasoning. Sebi _[talk] 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User owns a Pink Ipod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who own pink iPods. It does not foster collaboration and is essentially a more specialised version of Category:Wikipedians who use iPods, which was deleted per a UCFD discussion (link) in June.

• Delete as nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - it's even LESS useful than the previously deleted category. --Haemo 05:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless trivia. --Stephan Schulz 05:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How exactly is knowing that another user has a "Pink Ipod" helping to create the encyclopedia? Sebi _[talk] 05:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - A simple edit to the userbox, categorising to the properly named category (as noted below), leaves this category empty. - jc37 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User phn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a category for users who have an understanding of the Phoenician alphabet, as per the userbox. However, it is misfiled (under Category:Wikipedians by language, instead of the subcat Category:Wikipedians by writing system), mis-named (it uses the ISO 639-3 identification for the name, not the ISO 15924 ID for writing systems), and redundant to the properly categorized, properly named Category:User Phnx. Currently, there is one user in the category; he is not in the Phnx cat.

• Merge to Category:User Phnx as nom. Horologium t-c 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Latn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note: This nomination also includes Category:User Latn-3, Category:User Latn-4, Category:User Latn-5, Category:User Latn-N, and Category:Wikipedians who use Basic Latin (contains no users)
These are categories for users who have an understanding of the Latin alphabet. Since the English language uses the Latin alphabet, this categorisation scheme includes all editors and readers of en.wikipedia. All-inclusive categories contribute little or nothing to encyclopedic collaboration. A separate category for speakers of Latin exists at Category:User la.

• Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As we've determined previously that the alphabet cats are a case of "either you know it or you don't", and since to even use Wikipedia you have to use this alphabet, it's an all-inclusive category. (And doesn't even have the value that Category:User en has.) - jc37 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vector graphics editors (users) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Wikipedians who use vector graphics editors, Wikipedian vector graphics editors, Wikipedians who edit vector graphics, or similar. ×Meegs 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who edit vector graphics seems like the best choice. — The Storm Surfer 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Storm Surfer. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If vector graphics can be edited only via a vector graphics editor (a particular type of computer program), then rename to Category:Wikipedians who edit vector graphics. If vector graphcis can be edited without use of a vector graphics editor, rename to Category:Wikipedians who use vector graphics editors. In essence, the distinction is between a category for a certain type of action (editing vector graphics) and one for use of a certain product. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC) - Attempting to get more consensus regarding target[reply]

• Rename to suggestion. Sebi _[talk] 10:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, could you please clarify which of the 3 suggestions you are endorsing? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, "Wikipedia vector graphics editors". Sebi _[talk] 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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