Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/April 2009

< March 2009	Later user category discussions >

April 30

Category:Wikipedians against sports franchising

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted by Athaenara after creator's consent. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Support/oppose category, also a "not" category. Does not help to categorize things we don't like, per extensive precedent here. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You may fire when ready. 000Clifton ian000 06:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion, since Cliftonian is the creator and only member of the category and has given permission for deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who found MC10's secret page

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

The result of the discussion was: delete (with creator's consent). Bencherlite ^Talk 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Non-collaborative, individual user category. Identical category precedent to delete here. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if possible? Vanity category; serves no purpose. However, I don't think it's possible for categories to be userfied... -down load | sign! 01:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Special:WhatLinksHere work? It is on User:MC10/MA/SP (redirect) as includeonly. If so, then Delete. M C 10 | Sign here! 01:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so long as the barnstar itself actually does link to the secret page. If you don't want people to be able to find it that easily there are probably several ways you can try to hide it in the template. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree to deletion. Delete by creator. M C 10 | Sign here! 02:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User mk/bg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - innapropriate use of a babel category. Connected to a user box stating "This user considers Macedonian language as a dialect of Bulgarian language" - Babel categories signify levels in proficiency in a language, not whether a user considers something to be a dialect of a language or not. Additionally, it doesn't help to categorize users by this belief, so I would oppose any form of rename as well. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Nom that this category is inappropriate and unhelpful. A reminder, also, that the whole Macedonia subject is currently under ArbCom review. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Huntington Beach High School

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per WP:SNOW, it's empty, and precedent. Anyone wishing to continue to bicker is directed to take it elsewhere. Kbdank71 15:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - High school alma mater category, which have unanimous, extensive precedent to delete. See here. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high-schools have comparatively small class sizes compared to universities, so the chances of multiple established Wikipedians who went to the same high school is extremely slim. So what we would have is a whole mess of categories with one/two user(s) in it. This one is no exception, so delete per nom. Tavix | Talk 02:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In accepting the point of view expressed by others engaged in this discussion, I would argue that perhaps all categories of Wikipedians should therefore be deleted. In creating the category for HBHS, I simply followed what appears to be a common practice. The matter is for me not one that requires much debate, as the label created is easy enough to add the the user page. So, delete the category with my blessings but, not without deleting all categories related to Wikipedian educational history, not just those for High Schools, since not all Wikipedians have college educations, much less degrees. The avowed goal of Wikipedia is to be editable by any person, not just those with college educations, and limiting Wikipedians to distinction based upon college education is an elitist act. The only way to not disgrace yourselves with elitism is to be consistent across all demographics. You can't have it both ways, listing post-secondary institutions in categories and not listing secondary institutions, without engaging in elitism. The only non-elitist convention is to eliminate all such categories, or allow them to proliferate. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these types of categories are not about elitism, but it could be useful for finding people of your own alma mater. This was what I had in mind when I voted, not elitism or anything of that matter. I don't think having a college education or even a high school education has anything to do with how people should view you as a Wikipedian. I know for me, I haven't even graduated high school (yet), but I don't think that affects my editing at all. Tavix | Talk 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You perhaps want to remove the word *not* from the first sentence of your above comment; leaving this word suggests that your writing is sub-par, and combined with your admission of having not yet completed your high school education tends to argue against your point. An alternative deletion would be the word *don't*; use of double negatives constitutes an abuse of English. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point - it does not necessarily follow that higher education is requisite for quality editing. However, allowing categories for only college level Wikipedians (and thus not allowing categories for non-college educated editors) is elitist, plain and simple. William R. Buckley (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "alma mater" categories have nothing to do with elitism. Their existence is because such users are more likely to collaborate on topics relating to their college and/or university. For instance, there are tons of topics someone from OSU could collaborate on: See Category:Oregon State University. For high school categories, there is almost always only a single article that such users could collaborate on (if that), and even in the rare circumstances that a high school has multiple articles relating to it, it is generally going to still be too narrow of a subject for people in such a category to collaborate on. A better venue for these people to try to collaborate at is the high school's talk page. Additionally, as said above, high schools have a lot less people than colleges, so such categories are likely to only contain a small number of people, which also wouldn't be beneficial for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could easily make the same argument that you give, in relation to high schools. Some secondary institutions boast large numbers of students per class year, and some colleges claim exceedingly small numbers of students per class year. HBHS, when I attended, had class sizes on the order of one thousand per year. This means that four thousand students (freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors) were on campus on any given day. The current enrollment at Pacific University (Forest Grove Oregon) is xxx, as reported by the administration of Pacific University; [this note awaits a response from Claire Delamarter, Associate Registrar]. I am sure many more small college examples can be found. Moreover, and quite frankly, it does not matter your intent; please recall that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Like it or not, the net effect of limiting categories of wikipedians to college association is an elitist act. Intellectual myopia seems to abound within Wikipedia. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not aid in collaboration. Otto4711 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitrary and capricious vote. I love elitists! They, and how they hide from their elitism. William R. Buckley (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been called worse by better. If you want to assume that my vote is based in elitism, you're certainly free to do so. Calling everyone who disagrees with you an "elitist" does bugger-all toward convincing anyone of anything, and repeating it endlessly is tiresome. Of course you have no idea where I went to college of indeed if I went to college, so deciding that I'm some elitist Joe College because I don't believe this category fulfills the stated purpose of user categories, which is "to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia", seems kind of foolish. So spare us this populist posing. Otto4711 (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I call them as I see them; if the shoe fits, then you should happily wear it. That others know not of your college education is by your choice, not theirs; I certainly do not hide my identity, unlike you. The argument given to support deletion of the category is based upon the assumption that no other Wikipedian will have come from the indicated school, and thus there is no need for collaboration. This argument is weak for a number of reasons. Consider, for instance, that such a category will be subscribed in multiple only if it is in place for sufficient time. Further, the likelihood of collaboration will increase with time, and the number of graduates, which is quite large for HBHS. After all, this school was founded in 1906. Also, you made the claim of being "some Joe College," not I. My claim is that elimination of any category on the basis of tenure multiplicity (or lack there of) is an act of elitism. Not all categories of elitists claim small numbers. For instance, the membership of citizenship of the United States of America is a form of elitism; i.e. Americans are better than anybody else, and in particular, say, Mexicans. Your inability to see such conflicts is a direct consequence of elitist views. NB: the word sequence "...went to college of indeed if I went..." demonstrates a lack of skill with the English language. So, if you did go to college, you learned nothing, and if you didn't go to college, then you quite convincingly demonstrate same. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding that someone is poorly educated on the basis of a single typographical error is the mark of a true snob (I call them as I see them). Otto4711 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to make a point about your quality as an editor. I pointed to your failure to proof your own post. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who writes 'American's' and 'Mexican's' is in no position to lecture other users about English errors, IMO. Robofish (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All people can improve. Further, I never said my English composition skill is perfect. My point concerned editing skill. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. I am no populist, as anyone who knows me in person will attest. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to knock off the populist posing. Otto4711 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I've written here is populist. Only a fool thinks otherwise. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, what you've written here is populist posing, which is what I said. Try to keep up. Otto4711 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another great debate on the subject at hand. I'm just glad that I'm not the only one bearing the brunt of Otto's personal attacks. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - empty category, and not useful for collaboration. I find the accusations of 'elitism' baffling and, given User:William R. Buckley's own behaviour in this CFD thus far, somewhat ironic. Robofish (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are another individual who likes to hide his/her identity. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are high schools where there might be enough alumni here to benefit from finding each other and collaborating, there's no evidence that this is the case here. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians from Deep River, Ontario

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by small location" category, which have precedent to delete as too narrow to support collaboration. City has a population of only 4216. See here and here for precedent. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, a surprisingly educated, creative, and productive, group of people have either been born or passed through this small northern town, going on to contribute to many different fields making remarkable improvements to society. This makes Deep River, ON an exceptional place.l santry (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you, L. Santry, are communicating with elitists. See my claims above. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely don't understand your comment "are communicating with elitists". I am merely stating that per capita there are more nuclear physicists, chemists, mathematicians, . . . . scientists than any other city, town, hamlet etc. It is due to Deep River being a one horse town. Most people work, or worked, for Atomic Energy of Canada at the Chalk River Laboratories or in some business that accommodates the plant or people that work there <shrug>.

The argument given you by VegaDark, that your town (Deep River Ontario) is unworthy of distinction vis-à-vis a Wikipedian category, is an elitist position. How is this notion difficult to follow? William R. Buckley (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing elitist about a standard policy against creating single-entry categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the end result that defines elitism, not the justification. William R. Buckley (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another anonymous editor! Well, Bearcat, how do you define elitism? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it occurs to me that a category with only one user in it is not exactly very useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They start off with one user, and grow with time. William R. Buckley (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it can be created when there are enough users from Deep River to warrant it. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

again, not trying to be dense, but by using the elitist argument then Berkley or MIT would be too small to be considered important and also should be deleted (???!) They are small but no one would argue their important contributions to society.l santry (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC) p.s.<size doesn't matter>[reply]

It's not the size of the place that's the issue — it's the fact that there's only one page in the actual category. If there were 10 people in the category, it would be fine even if the place had a total population of 11. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well then, how about waiting a month to see if other people find the template, if by then if other people haven't found it and are linked to it, then consider deleting it??l santry (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, though I would expect to have more lead time to finding additional personnel; say six months. It is ridiculous to expect that any category would find initial creation with, as suggested by Bearcat, ten like minded Wikipedians. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 27

Category:Sandboxes

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sandboxes to Category:Wikipedia sandboxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category name looks like articles about sandboxes, like this, belong in it. This category is actually intended for Wikipedia sandboxes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy if possible. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is there actually any benefit to grouping all user sandboxes in a category? What possible use is there to seek out other users' sandboxes? What benefit will keeping this category provide Wikipedia? If someone can come up with one, I'd be open to keeping. If no consensus to delete, I support the proposed rename. VegaDark (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It's a useful way of finding public sandboxes, and I don't see any way of excluding private ones. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no collaborational benefit to the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the official ones are listed in the template. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no obvious need for a category here. Robofish (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 25

Category:Wikipedia:User page Books

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. While there was consensus to rename, there wasn't an agreed upon target name, and since these are tied to the widely used {{Saved book}}, we should probably get more input than two people here. Kbdank71 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia:User page Books to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Applied sciences to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on applied sciences

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Computer Science to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on computer science

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Economics to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on economics

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Finance to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on finance

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on International development to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on international development

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Arts to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on arts

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Literature to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on literature

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Music to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on music

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Culture to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on culture

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Entertainment to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on entertainment

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Media to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on media

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Sports to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on sports

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books about video games to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on video games

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Geography to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on geography

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books by Country to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on countries

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Australia to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Australia

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Brazil to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Brazil

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on India to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on India

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Singapore to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Singapore

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Thailand to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Thailand

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on the United States to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on the United States

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books by Region to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on regions

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Asia to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Asia

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on North America to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on North America

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Oceania to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on Oceania

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on South America to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on South America

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Health to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on health

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on History to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on history

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Mathematics to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on mathematics

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on People to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on people

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Inventors to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on inventors

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Philosophy to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on philosophy

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Religion to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on religion

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Mythology to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on mythology

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Science to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on science

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Formal sciences to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on formal sciences

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Natural sciences to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on natural sciences

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Social sciences to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on social sciences

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Self to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on the self

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Society to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on society

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Language to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on language

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Linguistics to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on linguistics

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Technology to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on technology

and Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Transport to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books on transport

and Category:Wikipedia:Other Books to Category:User page Wikipedia:Books (merging)

and Category:Wikipedia:Books for Testing Purposes to Category:User page test Wikipedia:Books

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To clarify the intent, apply the Wikipedia prefix to Books, where it is most needed. For comparison, see Category:Wikipedia:Books and its other subcats. Also bringing capitalization in line with Wikipedia style. Also standardize the preposition to on. This discussion will help establish the naming conventions for Wikipedia book categories, so let's give this some serious thought. I think I've got the whole hierarchy tagged now. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:Wikipedia user page books on x, which IMO is a better naming convention than the one proposed, except Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Health, Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Mathematics, Category:Wikipedia:User page Books on Self which need to be speedy deleted as empty. VegaDark (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 24

Category:Wikipedians interested in Yaoi

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted by R'n'B per G7. VegaDark (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Too hard to make KingRaven (>$.$)> (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - given that KingRaven is the creator and only editor of this category, and it's unused, I think we can take the above as grounds for WP:CSD#G7. Robofish (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 23

Support/Oppose flagged revisions

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - I know I suggested that this could be immediately re-nominated, but I note that nearly every commenter is also a commenter involved on the talk page of the canvasser of the previous discussion. So I think at this point it's probably not possible to discern a true consensus from a nomination at this time. While I came within a hair of closing this as: no consensus, default to delete, per prior community consensus noted at WP:USERCAT/WP:OC/U; I'm going to leave it for now, in the hopes that future consensus can be determined. Again, no prejudice against future nominations, but let's give this a couple weeks at least. - jc37 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Previous CFD for oppose category closed because of improper canvassing without prejudice to immediate renomination. Both categories should be deleted because: they fail WP:OC#OPINION as they merely identify Wikipedians on the basis of their opinion on a particular issue; they are divisive and polarizing categories; they do not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The claim of "canvassing" is completely and utterly invalid, though I understand the motives behind the charge. The effort to deny that people have opinions, even ones that relate directly to Wikipedia, is completely and utterly pointless. Why we would not want to allow individual editors to announce their opinions on issues of importance to the community and to allow them to interact with each other is difficult to understand, at best, and disruptive, at worst. While the issues might possibly be divisive or polarizing, there is nothing wrong with the userbox or the category. The determined effort to keep other users in the dark on this issue, especially when there was no effort whatsoever by the nominator to make any attempt at notification of the affected parties, only allows the same unrepresentative handful of editors who hang around at CfD to decide this issue. Without any outside input, we too often end up ensuring that the consensus reached here is not reflective of anything more than the biases of the usual participants. Alansohn (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting aside the "canvassing" issue for the moment, this category serves to help identify Wikipedians who stand on both sides of a very important issue that will have a serious impact on Wikipedia's future. The categories themselves are neither divisive nor polarizing (though you could argue that one of the userboxes on the page is, and I would have no defense against that charge). They do serve to facilitate coordination because they help to immediately identify where various users stand on an important Wikipedia issue that will shape how the encyclopedia develops in the future. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:OC#OPINION - it is merely the opinion of the nom that WP:OC#OPINION applies in this matter (IMO). I am off to create 'userbox:Wikipedians who have struggled unsuccessfully to grasp the essence of Flagged Revisions and have heard enough of them for the time being.' This apart, I am with Alansohn re the rather bizarre attempts to keep anyone who is actually interested in these userboxes/categories away from cfd. (A deletion at cfd would be followed by cries of 'drv is not cfd round 2' if anyone who notices the cfd post-hoc has the temerity to protest at not being informed.) Disclaimer: I have not been canvassed and have never used any userboxes. Occuli (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These two CfDs do not violate WP:OC#OPINION as the very titles indicate an activist position on a highly controversial and major Wiki issue. And they clearly are not over categorization. As to canvasing, CfDs are not high on the visibility chart, so anything that will increase the jury size, and therefore increase the chance of reaching a broader and therefore a more legitimate consensus and potentially a more correct outcome, is a good thing. Provided the canvasing is done neutrally and is not limited to only one potential side. Also, categories are navigational aids that help people find similar category members. — Becksguy (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these categories enable editors, and more importantly readers, to identify editors' position on a major issue facing the Wikipedia. While the issue of flagged revisions has undoubtedly created divisions, I see nothing divisive about the categories at all. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - these categories identify the opinions of those in a highly controversial issue. They make it much easier to determine who is on what side and can make starting discussions easier. Alexfusco⁵ 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' These nominations are more disruptive and divisive than the categories could possibly be. --Abd (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)I use neither of these userboxes and I was not canvassed at all.[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to TBTL

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by radio series" category, which were all deleted as too narrow for collaboration. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware of that, I have no opposition to the delete -- GoldMan60 ¤ Talk 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bosniak Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: keep--Aervanath (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by ancestry" category, which have a unanimous precedent to delete. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is no unanimous precedent to delete. Note the existence of the other 143 nationality categories. PRODUCER (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox this category is associated with clearly says "This user has Bosniak ancestry", making it an ancestry category which do have unanimous precedent to delete. VegaDark (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are two userboxes associated with this category, only one of which mentions ancestry. If the userbox is a problem, nominate that for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I shall add that the link provided by VegaDark which he claims shews unanimous precedent to delete (here) shews no such thing. DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ancestry categories have a unanimous precedent to delete. The nationality categories don't. That link has a combination of both. Yes, I saw there are two userboxes, and only one specifically mentions ancestry, but "Bosniak" is used in the same contex so I think it's pretty safe to say that one refers to ancestry as well. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, why is a userbox that includes the word "ancestry" in it problematic? Many ethnicity userboxes include it in them. PRODUCER (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox isn't problematic, the category is because ancestry categories don't encourage collaboration. You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry. There is no benefit to wikipedia by categorizing users grouped into whatever ancestry they may be, and user categories are supposed to be used to seek out others for collaboration to benefit the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the precedents, I don't think there actually is consensus that these categories are unacceptable. The ones that have been deleted are mainly for intersections, like Category:Anglo-German Wikipedians; both Category:English Wikipedians and Category:German Wikipedians still exist. As long as we keep them (and others like Category:American Wikipedians, Category:Chinese Wikipedians, etc.), we should keep this as well. If you don't like any of them, then nominate the parent category (Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality) for deletion, but don't nominate the individual categories separately until there's a broader consensus. Robofish (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below. VegaDark (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason not to allow individuals to self-describe their nationality or ethnicity, in line with the more than 100 such entries included in the parent Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a nationality or ethnicity category as evidenced by the userboxes populating this category, but rather an ancestry category. I'm aware there isn't a consensus to delete the nationality and ethnicity categories. If the userboxes and category description were changed to make the category unambiguously a nationality/ethnicity category, I'd agree we can allow this to stay, but I think doing that with the existing category would introduce miscategorization due to the people already in the category due to ancestry. VegaDark (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User en-in-N

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

The result of the discussion was: merge--Aervanath (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:User en-in - "This user is a native speaker of Indian English" - This is a subcategory of a non-ISO dialect of English, which have been unanimously merged to their parent category previously. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and prior consensus. Robofish (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions

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

The result of the discussion was: Closed due to inappropriate canvassing.

And a note to the canvasser: If the user inappropriately canvasses like this again, the user involved will be blocked on sight. (I'll be leaving a note on the user's talk page.)

This is no different, and no less inappropriate than the editor in the past who canvassed people who had the inclusionist userbox on their userpage in order to get something they wanted "kept".

This category may be immediately renominated at editorial discretion, but due to the canvassing problem, the comments of any of those who were canvassed should be discounted entirely. I believe that there is vast precedence for this. And I welcome other admin comment on this closure. - jc37 06:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Support/oppose category, which have historically been deleted as being potentially divisive and not supporting collaboration. See here for near-unanimous related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as for all intents and purposes a recreation of a previously deleted category. Otherwise delete per nom and WP:OC by opinion/issue. Otto4711 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category provides a way to show a stance on an issue of importance to many Wikipedians. The prior category offered as a justification for speedy deletion was created to say that individuals in the category will not fight vandalism without the implementation of flagged revisions and has no validity as the basis for a speedy delete. We have a process to discuss these categories and ought to respect it. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn. -down load | sign! 04:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking above speedy delete comment as I did mis-remember the details of the earlier category. Noting that the speedy tag was removed with the notation that it is the opposite of the deleted category, that a category designed to express an opinion that is the opposite of a previously deleted opinion category is still an opinion category and that the category should still be deleted not only because of its divisive nature and because it runs afoul of categorizing on the basis of an opinion or issue but more fundamentally it does not aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this is a support/oppose category, unlike most such categories, this one is directly related to a controversial issue at the Wikipedia project. Thus it is relevant, because it expresses opinion on how best to proceed with improving the encyclopedia, similar to inclusionist/deletionist userboxes, etc. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Wikipedia users who support Flagged Revisions should probably be discussed at the same time. I would also like to note, for transparency, that Alansohn has left messages for users in the oppose category. –xeno ^talk 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm probably shutting down soon, but I will be happy to run through the category and notify those who would be affected by the deletion of Category:Wikipedia users who support Flagged Revisions if no one else takes care of it. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above Schumin and Alansohn. This category is just another medium for users to express their opinions. As far as consensus is concerned, I don't believe that such categories are enough to hinder open discussion. It can actually stimulate it, as more users are approached about their opinions and are given the chance to express their ideas and motives. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assist collaboration between users. How else am I going to find other like-minded users? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have half a mind to close this now after the exceedingly innapropriate notification of all users in the category. Of course you're never going to get an impartial consensus if this occurs. As a result, we get a double standard of deleting some wikipedia issue support/oppose categories, but keeping these (I support deletion of the other category as well, which arguably does qualify for speedy deletion. There is of course no logical reason to keep this and delete the other, though). Also, "finding other like minded users" does not benefit Wikipedia unless finding such users would result in improving Wikipedia, which it wouldn't in this case. VegaDark (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't write a bold !vote because I was canvassed to come here, but as I am in this category it should be assumed that I want to keep it. There are categories for things such as approving or disproving of certain policies, such as notability, and also certain wikiphilosophies. I don't see these categories as doing any harm as the users in them are self-identified and voluntarily choose to join that category. This category isn't negative as it doesn't attack editors with opposing views, so I don't see how this can be too divisive when we allow much more polarising userboxen to be displayed. Categories are navigational aids, and this particular category forms a group which is useful for statistical purposes regarding the proposed overhauls to the system. I see no reason to delete. Them From Space 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian criminals

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Seems like an innapropriate user category. Do we really want to categorize Wikipedia's criminals? Likely a joke category, and even if not, I can see no collaborative use for this category. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inappropriate for collaborative categorization. Probably ought to be speediable as a potential attack category and/or for WP:BLP concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If only we could speedy this, but it appears that the only member of the category is the person who created the category, and so unless they tag it as a G7 themselves, I can't bring myself to G10 it. What on earth this person was thinking in creating this, I don't know, but in five or so days this category will be gone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain this is a joke, especially since it's categorized in Category:Wikipedians by profession. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presumably this would only include self-acknowledged criminals. Though I'm not sure why would we want to encourage people who claim to be criminals to have a better way to find each other. Isn't that what prison is for? Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I doubt many people will add themself, but it could presumably lead to encyclopedic collaboration... (WP:WikiProject Jails?) –xeno ^talk 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although xeno's point had some merit, I cannot see how safe crackers would collaborate with drunk drivers with check bouncers to yield much by way of encyclopedic content rather than a "how-to" type guides on doing what they do and how to get away with it (presumably not placing yourself in the category would be one such way...but I digress). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As the original creator of the category, I'll go ahead and say that I suppose this category may be deleted if people here are really up in arms about it, but what's wrong with another category for people who wish to identify as criminals if they are cooperating with one another on a collaborative and intellectual project? The fact that one leads a life of crime is a separate and distinct issue from the value and utility of his or her contribution to Wikipedia. Constructive projects for incarcerated people, such as chess matches for prisoners (formally organized in American prisons by the United States Chess Federation) have long been a staple of efforts at reforming many of those spending their time behind prison bars, and I see this category as another idea of a similar sort. The open act of self-acknowledgment of one as a criminal furthers honesty and enables one to conduct himself or herself in an authentic way in a safe online environment. The stigmatization which some appear to associate with this category is simply in the mind of the beholder. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you're going with this, but I still advocate its deletion because it's ambiguous enough of a title that it could be taken to mean anything. Perhaps "Wikipedians who are currently incarcerated" is a better description of your intentions? SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible. 'Wikipedian prisoners' or 'Currently incarcerated Wikipedians' might be appropriate if there were actually enough of them to justify a category, which I doubt. This one just seems like a joke category, but even if it isn't, we shouldn't be promoting illegal activity via user categories. Robofish (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does identifying oneself as a criminal promote illegal activity? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, being a criminal means one, by definition, has done something illegal. By putting yourself in such a category, it looks to me like you're boasting about it (even if that was not the intention). Similar categories and userboxes have been deleted in the past for that reason - I'm sure a Category:Wikipedian paedophiles or something like it was created and deleted once, though I can't seem to find record of that now. Robofish (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not boasting about it – I don't know why you think so. Being a criminal is one thing. Being a paedophile is different, so I think your analogy is quite off. Socrates was a criminal. (No, that's not a boast.) He wasn't a paedophile. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Superheroes

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic "who like" category. The "who like" naming convention has been abandoned for all user categories except for "Wikipedians by TV show" categories, and even that is only because someone hasn't made a group nom for those yet. This is because categorizing "who likes" particular things does not benefit Wikipedia to categorize, as user categories are supposed to benefit Wikipedia by supporting collaboration. At minimum this needs a more encyclopedic name. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Any deletion process where the affected Wikipedia users can be readily identified, notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate, and this is not done, is completely and utterly worthless, regardless of the merits of the category. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD do we insist that only people who spend most of their time at CfD and the stray individual who happens to see the CfD be given the opportunity to discuss deletion, while all else are effectively kept in the dark. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, notification of the creator is not required, although I'll admit it is courteous. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, generally based on how much time I have and how much hassle notification would be (in cases where I mass nominate a group of categories). In any case, I've notified the creator now. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't benefit the project and there are plenty of avenues for those interested in actually collaborating on superhero or comics-related articles to find each other. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not collaboration engendering. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively broad as to give no hint of expertise of these users. Do they mean Ultraman or American Maid ? 76.66.196.218 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians Who Support Fox News

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Support/oppose category, which have unanimous precedent to delete as being potentially divisive and for not supporting collaboration. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not engendering collaboration - and those who buy various products related to Fox or its advertisers in some sense support (financially) Fox News. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social club, nor MySpace. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot to note that this category also uses improper capitalization of "Who Support", so this at extreme minimum needs a rename. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - It should be renamed to Wikipedians who listen to Fox News. In that case, it would help create collaboration. But in its current state, it should be deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorization by opinion, not useful for collaboration. Also quite vague as it is not at all clear what "support" means in this context. I loathe FOX News and would never watch it, but I support its right to exist, so am I a supporter? Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bionicle Fans

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per existence of task force. Kbdank71 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (first preference) or Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Bionicle (second preference) - First of all, there's no indication that this is a user category, plus "fans" is improperly capitalized. Additionally, "fans" of a comic is an unencyclopedic naming convention and goes against the standard "who read" naming convention. Prefer deletion as I'm not sure the scope of this category would be broad enough for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename but if this category doesn't get very far after a reasonable period of time, I'm open to deleting. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorisation by opinion, not useful for collaboration purposes. Robofish (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorization by opinion, not necessarily useful for collaboration (I'm a fan of lots of things but have no interest in writing about them). Interested parties may join the Bionicle task force. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom's suggestion. I'm not seeing a reason why this cat is less acceptable than other user cats about topics once it gets renamed. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 22

Category:Wikipedians who are FSF members

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of users based on membership in an organization. The ability to located members of (i.e. donors to) the non-profit Free Software Foundation is unlikely to facilitate coordination and collaboration on Wikipedia. If kept, the initials should be spelled out because FSF is ambiguous. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the link to FSF may be useful for other people seeking contact with an organization. NVO (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The link possibly being useful "for other people seeking contact with an organization" is not a Wikipedia-related goal, and user categories should have some sort of benefit for Wikipedia in order to facilitate collaboration. At minimum, as the nom mentions, this needs to be renamed for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not relevant to on-wiki collaboration. Robofish (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Free Software Foundation is a very important online politics entity and membership among editors give guidance about their capacities also related to Wikipedia editorship. __meco (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Are you suggesting that donating money to FSF might make someone a more capable editor on Wikipedia? --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no collaborative benefit to the project, which is what user categories are supposed to be about, not expressing solidarity with one or another sociopolitical organization. Otto4711 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 15

Category:WikiProject Sega

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

The result of the discussion was: procedural close, cat already deleted. Kbdank71 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Former WIkiProject category, now a task force of WP:VG.

Depopulate and delete this category and all subcategories. –xeno (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice left at the task force to see if anyone objects, if no objections I would suggest deletion. Note I would've just deleted this as G6 back when I nominated it, but it was getting late, so I nominated it more of a reminder to myself. –xeno (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 14

Category:Polish American Wikipedian Users

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or double upmerge - First of all, this has an improper naming convention of "Wikipedian users" at the end, it should just be "Wikipedians", so this at minimum needs a rename. Second of all, it is a nationality-ethnicity combination category, which have all been either deleted or double upmerged previously (in this case, it would be double upmerged to Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Polish Wikipedians. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary intersection, the existing categories are perfectly sufficient. Robofish (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we can determine the preferences of the people in the group. They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? DGG (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They seem to have a decided preference, and why should we impose our own on them? - That argument could be used to keep any unencyclopedic user category. Category:Wikipedians who eat 63% ripe bananas on every 3rd Tuesday of the month on odd numbered years in Portugal could be kept via that rationale. After all, such users did, in fact, display their decided preference. The problem is, this category doesn't benefit the encyclopedia at all. It's an unncessary category intersection that does not foster collaboration, which is the goal of user categories. VegaDark (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robofish as an unnecessary intersection of ethnicity and nationality, and allow the affected users to recategorize themselves as they wish (if they care about this at all). I agree with the general principle behind DGG's contention (that users should be free to identify themselves as they wish), but I think it is misapplied here. There is a difference between expressing a self-identification, which is fine, and creating a grouping of users based on that identification. Categories, including user categories, are not just bottom-of-the-page notices. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & not conducive to cooperation; if you can speak Polish, add the lang box and someone will ask you for translation, but ethnicity alone is not useful basis for categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians equal rights for all

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - First of all, this category name doesn't make sense. I assume it is suppsed to mean Category:Wikipedians who support equal rights for all people, so this at minimum needs a rename to make sense. Secondly, however, this is a support/oppose category, which have historically been deleted from Wikipedia as not fostering collaboration and for being potentially divisive. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very bad idea for a category. Amongst other things, it implies those who are not in it do not support 'equal rights for all' (whatever that means here). Delete as poorly defined, divisive and inherently POV. Robofish (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In addition to the problem identified by the nominator (that the category "group[s] users by advocacy of a position"), I think that most people would agree with the sentiment expressed by the userbox (or perhaps it is that few would openly express their disagreement with it...), which makes this category a "grouping of users on the basis of something that may be a characteristic of most or all Wikipedia users ... or humans more generally". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – Althought i made this i think it should just be renamed if anything.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very commendable feelings, but ultimately not helping to cooperate to write an encyclopedia; I'm sure we wouldn't dream of keeping Category:Wikipedians who support unequal rights or whatever the counter position is to this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Students of Bergen Community College

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bergen Community College - Needs to be renamed to follow the standard naming conventions of "alma mater" categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv!

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unencyclopedic. Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize those who love a particular city. If the user wishes to create Category:Wikipedians in Kiev, they are free to do so, but "who love" is an unencyclopedic naming convention, and categorizing this has no benefit. I'll also note our article is located at Kiev, so at extreme minimum this category would need to be renamed to match the article title. VegaDark (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not useful for cooperation. 'Wikipedians interested in Kyiv-related topics' would be appropriate, but this category has no obvious use. Robofish (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social club, nor MySpace. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – or rename to Category:Wikipedians who love Kyiv somewhat, but not enough to set up a Wikiproject. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously an attack category, leveling the implied accusation that those who are not in it hate Kyiv. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a "grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not helping to foster cooperation to write an encyclopedia and a bad precedent too, can we think of 1000s of these "love Foo..." categories, and perhaps a few "hate Foo..." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 12

Category:Users in the United Arab Emirates and Category:United Arab Emirates Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 14:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge both to Category:Wikipedians in the United Arab Emirates - All are dupicates of eachother, merge target is the only one that follows standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Duplicate (or is it triplicate?) categories and per naming conventions. — Σ xplicit 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Superkingt

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Individual user category, which we have unanimously deleted in the past. See here for related precedent. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia readers will not use this structure, which only benefits this one user. Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 7

Category:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting

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

The result of the discussion was: delete For those sick of having to wait for flagged revisions and therefore refuse to do vandal fighting. Not a protest category? WP:DUCK would appear to say otherwise. Kbdank71 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This user category not only fails to follow the naming conventions for user categories, it also runs afoul of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories by being based on likes and dislikes and being divisive and potentially disruptive. There are better ways to make one's point than by creating protest user categories. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOT a protest category, nor is it intended to make a point (unless you let it). Being in this category is a way to show users that might ask for vandalism reversion from a category member... not to bother, because I won't. Therefore it helps with the smooth running of the encyclopedia and avoids wasted time. Rename it if you like to fit the naming convention but you haven't actually shown how it's divisive or disruptive. (Proof by assertion... isn't) ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that assertion is not proof. Here are my arguments: Divisive because it divides editors into those who willing to act and those who refusing to do so. Potentially disruptive because vandal fighting is a necessary component of Wikipedia maintenance. If enough people decided to refrain from doing it, it would indeed disrupt the project. (Not that this seems likely to happen.)

I was guessing about the intent; I'm sorry for assuming incorrectly that it was intended as a protest or to make a point. I trust you can imagine why I jumped to that conclusion. Best wishes, --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization based on opinion. The notion that someone would peruse this category to avoid asking a member for a reversion is...novel...but highly unlikely. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Support/oppose category, which consensus has previously determined time and time again are not appropriate for Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like a good idea for a userbox, or other userpage notice of some kind, but not for a category. Categories shouldn't be used as "bottom of the page" notices. And there's also the issue of being "not"-based. - jc37 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If people want to create a userbox to communicate this idea, they should feel free to do so, but this doesn't need to be a category (user or otherwise). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 6

Category:Wexion Templates

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is dedicated to a single user and serves no purpose in the encyclopedia as whole. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – inappropriate use of category space. Occuli (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was wanting to put the category in my user namespace; I never discovered how (impossible?) so I've no argument against its deletion. -- Wex 20:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Former WIkiProject category, now a task force of WP:VG.

Depopulate and delete this category and all subcategories. –xeno (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat participants & Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat articles should probably be listified to the task force page. –xeno (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have listified the contents of both categories see [1] / [2]. –xeno (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair enough rationale; I was an active member back in the day, but it's been dead for a while. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Blocked Wikipedia users

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary category, previously deleted as a misnamed article Categories: Blocked Wikipedia users RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Impossible category to maintain, no real benefit to grouping these users. Possibly speedyable as I seem to recall a similar category being deleted previously, although I can't find the discussion. Note to closer: Please close this with Template:Ucfd top. VegaDark (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serves little useful purpose and is contrary to the deny recognition principle. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose this category is useful to Wikipedia administrators. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete admins have access to a blocklog search tool under special pages, so this doesn't seem to help out for admins. For non-admins, it will probably not be overly useful since it will be impossible to maintain (as people get blocked, unblocked, etc. - some with alarming frequency). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 5dsddddd

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: User in question has not returned to socking and category does seem to have that much administrative value. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user already knows about the block for misbehavior, and keeping this category seems to just antagonize him/her. We have too many of these types of pages, that seem to only exist to either feed the trolls, or be used to "kick the user in the face". NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? This is a perfectly valid administrative page. In no way does it 'feed the trolls' or 'kick the user in the face'. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as out of scope for CfD Doesn't the {{sockpuppet}} automatically generate a link to a sockuppet category? Even if you delete the category page, you can't empty it without removing the whole sockpuppet template from the user page (which is probably not a valid solution to this problem). Also, I suppose that there are hundreds of categories exactly like this one, one for every sock master that only used one sock, this is out of scope for CfD and should discussed at WT:SOCK or at Template_talk:Sockpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No good reason to discard this information. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand the nominatory statement, and do not see any reason to delete this administrative category. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and close But this is why we need an "Administrative Category" name space... Creep or no creep.--Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do believe that this is within the scope of CfD (now that UCFD has merged here, that is), but I don't think the nominator's reasons are compelling enough to treat this any differently than the hundreds of other sockpuppet categories. One can make a case to delete them all as a group due to WP:DENY, but that argument probably would need to be taken somewhere outside of CfD. Note to closer: Please close this with Template:Ucfd top. VegaDark (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per above. -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the editors who have to deal with this dude in the future, may have to rely on the institutional memory reposited in these sorts of cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 5

Category:Zaza Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, According to the associated template "This user is of Zaza ancestry", thus it is "Wikipedians by ancestry" category which have all been deleted previously as not fostering collaboration. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this & all the others except the birthdays. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in resting

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is automatically added to user pages who add a userbox stating "This user enjoys siesta". Not encyclopedic in the least, could not possibly foster collaboration. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in collecting hide plushies

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a "who collect" category (all of which were renamed here), is too narrow for collaboration, and is borderline completely unencyclopedic. Can not foster collaboration. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays

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

The result of the discussion was: keep--Aervanath (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it can't foster collaboration. We have previously deleted a category for Wikipedians' real birthdays (see here) and I can't think how the rationale could be any different for this category. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this category (in conjunction with an edit to {{User Wikipedian for}}) to keep track of people to give WikiLove—on a given day I check the category and give a {{cookie}}-like message to some people. Maybe it doesn't "help" anything, but I don't see it hurting the encyclopedia either (and I certainly don't see how it goes against "fostering collaboration"). Can you name something that the category is actually hurting? (Also please note: the contents of the category right now don't really mean anything; the contents change every day, since it's populated by a conditional statement within a widely transcluded template.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't this information be on a Wikipedia space page instead? As for it not hurting the encyclopedia, I would mention WP:NOHARM. That is, keeping this could set precedent to keep non-collaborative categories, and from what I can tell going directly against the rationale used to delete the real birthdays category, setting a double standard, which I'd like to avoid if at all possible. User categories are supposed to be for collaboration, and while your use of this category is certainly nice, where do we draw the line? Keeping this opens the door to allow categories for seeking out and congratulating others for any number of things- Why not a category linked to a userbox that reveals the anniversary of their wedding, for instance? (or even something trivial, like first XfD nom?) I realize that users are often congratulated on their talk pages for their Wiki-anniversary and for real birthdays, and I have no problem with that-my problem is the use of categories in doing so, when categories are supposed to be encylopedic. Also, if nothing else, I think some sort of rename would be beneficial, as the title isn't clear as to if it is Wikipedians whose real birthday it is (which upon reading the category description makes clear this is not the case) or its intended purpose of containing Wikipedians whose wiki-anniversary it is. When I originally found the cat I assumed the former until I read the description. VegaDark (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Couldn't this information be on a Wikipedia space page instead?" As far as I know, that is impossible. The page updates itself automatically, which AFAIK can only be done with a category and a transcluded template. Likewise, it's not a permanent record of information (like a regular page would be); it's just something that people's name shows up in for 24 hours or so, whichi allows User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display to show a little thing, and then I can go identify those people and send them a message. The next day, their names disappear (if not on their own, then when I null-edit their userpage).

And whether or not it's in "Wikipedia space" is irrelevant; categories are routinely used for behind-the-scenes stuff that users don't care about. For one random example, Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates.

Renaming it would not be a problem (as long as you remember to also update {{User Wikipedian for}}—remember, this category is not just something that sits around by itself, but is part of several related templates), but I don't see any good reason to delete it. So far, most people have liked getting my silly little message, and every day if I make one person feel better about being a Wikipedia user then I have done my job. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you mention that "it doesn't hurt anything" is not a good argument, per WP:NOHARM. Well, your main argument is that keeping this would "set a precedent," so I feel obligated to direct you to WP:ALLORNOTHING. (If you get to cite WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, then hey, so do I.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can manually add themselves to a Wikipedia-space page if they wish to be congratulated, listing 365 days and users can add their name under the day that applies to them. And yes, I know many categories such as Category:Wikipedia Did you know templates exist- That isn't a user category though, and user categories have their own guidelines. It actually benefits the encyclopedia to categorize those templates as well, while there is no encyclopedic benefit to categorizing users whose wiki-anniversary it is. Also, I don't believe arguing that it will set precedent (which undeniably all XfDs do to some extent) equates to an "all or nothing" argument. We don't have to keep all future similar categories if this is kept, obviously. It would IMO set a double standard. Nobody has yet explained how this is any different from the real birthdays category in terms of rationale to keep. Perhaps consensus on this type of category has changed, but I would consider the rationale behind that debate still sound. As for a rename, I'd propose Category:Wikipedians whose Wiki-anniversary is today or something along those lines.VegaDark (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should mention, for anyone who's not familiar with what this category does, that a deletion of this category will also be, in effect a deletion of User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display, because that template will not work without this category. Please consider that when closing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is useful for wishing Wikipedians well when it's their Wiki-birthday. Today is my Wiki-birthday, and 2 people came by my talk page to say happy birthday, and it made my day. This isn't like nationalities or plush-preference, which could foster factionalism; this is purely a way to spread wiki-love on the anniversary of your editing. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is really the only way to do it. Not quite the same as the real birthdays, & ok I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fairly certain this is the only way, short of creating a bot (which is significantly more work, for no apparent pay-off, and is far more likely to screw up and require constant maintenance). If anyone else knows of a way to make templates like User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display and User:Rjanag/DYKfuture automatically update themselves without using a category, I would love to hear of it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the least, this probably needs a rename to remove the word "current". That aside, if the category creator is suggesting that this is to be used as a "source" for bots to mine for notices, then that's an interesting idea. How exactly is this intended to work? - jc37 02:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "current" because, as I said above, it's not a permanent record; on a given day, it only shows the users whose "wikibirthday" is that given day. As for "to be used as a source for bots to mine for notices"... well, a bot doesn't mine it for notices, I mine it for notices, and every morning/afternoon-ish I post a brief message to people's talk pages to wish them "happy birthday". There is no "is to be used", it is already being used.

As for how it works...basically, in the userbox {{User Wikipedian for}} I inserted a conditional that does nothing 364 days a year, but on the one day that's your "wikibirthday" it adds you to the category. Then a template that I have transcluded on my userpage, User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display, uses the magic word {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} to automatically show me how many people are in the category for that day. I go to the category and post a message to each person (after checking their contribs...for example, if it's someone who's only made like 5 edits and hasn't been around in years, I don't bother). The messages are like this: [3][4][5][6] By the next day, the conditional within {{User Wikipedian for}} is no longer met, so that user's userpage automatically removes itself from this category, and the counter transcluded on my page automatically updates the number. It's all done more or less automatically without needing a bot. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a "bot mined" category, except that instead of having a bot do it, you're doing it manually : )

For me, this is a tough call, since I am a strong proponent for things which not only directly help collaboration, but also indirectly help collaboration. And I think that this might be considered one of those "indirect" collaborative tools. That said, if we keep this, it can suggestively open the door to quite a few things which are likely quite a bit less than even indirectly collaborative.

So I'd say "keep", as long as it's not considered an overall consensus for more of these types of cats to be created. (Which is, I think, the concern of the nominator, as well.) - jc37 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but did you look at the extended discussion below the nom? This category is part of an automated process that updates itself daily (it's the inner workings for the template at User:Rjanag/WikiBirthday display core), it's not just a list that sits around doing nothing. Please make sure you understand what it actually does before !voting, because it is different than a normal category. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about his comment indicated that he didn't read the extended discussion? The category being non-collaborative is still entirely valid reasoning to delete, unless you agree with jc37 in that it is indirectly collaborative, which I personally don't buy in to, unless promoting Wikilove can somehow be interpreted as such. I'd like to read an expanded rationale regarding how this can be considered indirectly collaborative. VegaDark (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a way of recognizing and thanking people who have been making valuable contributions for a long time (that's part of the reason I don't give a message to people who happened to join on this day but have only made like 10 contribs). As such, I don't think it can really be compared to a random list of real-world birthdays; it's closer to being something like a DYK medal, another recognition of contributions.
    - As for your suggestion that I make a Wikipedia space spage and people add themselves to it every day...that is clearly never gonna happen. First of all, most people did not know about this category until I sent them their birthday/anniversary/whatever-you-like-to-call-it message. Secondly, seriously, who adds themselves to a page asking to get congratulated? I think WikiLove is much nicer when it's not solicited.
    - Finally, no offense, but I do believe the "delete" votes are based on a misunderstanding of what the category is, and likewise I believe this entire CfD could have been avoided if you had just left me a message asking what it is and how it works, rather than throwing it in with a group of other categories you nominated en masse. If this category were what you originally thought it is—a useless list that just sits around and looks pretty—then yes, it would clearly be a candidate for deletion. But that's not what it is; it's a tool for keeping track of Wikipedians' contributions and for congratulating them. It is not at all replaceable by any of the "options" raised above (a Wikipedia-space page, or a bot) and it is being used for a process that people appreciate, unlike the other country music and plushie categories you've nommed that just sit around doing nothing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this is collaborative in the slightest? WP is WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This is not a social networking site. While some social interaction occurs, as is normal in any human activity, especially a collaborative effort - WP is not intended to mirror a real world social network (like Myspace, Facebook, and others). Wikipedia birthdays, anniversaries, etc. are not relevant - and I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just trying to help build an encyclopedia. Wikilove may have its place, but rather than loving the unloved, I would certainly prefer if its distributors would dispense sources to the unsourced articles instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is collaborative in that it makes some editors feel good about being members of the community; I've already been told by several people that my silly little message helped keep them motivated to contribute. Maybe giving someone a friendly message is "not relevant" to the encyclopedia, but it is absolutely no less relevant than giving them a {{cookie}}, {{smile}}, {{glass of milk}} ... the list goes on.

The repeated claim that something like this is distracting me from sourcing, encyclopedia-building, etc., is totally unfounded. It takes me about 10 seconds in the morning to check the category and give messages to the one or two people who are appearing in it on a given day. If you are concerned about wasting time that would have been better spent improving articles...then well, I hate to say it, but this CfD itself has wasted more of all our our time than a month's worth of maintaining this category has. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories like this are not the sort of thing, but good contributors like Rjanag use it to encourage community feeling, and thus help collaboration on the encyclopedia. DGG (talk)

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

Category:User ace-0

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a 0-level category which have been unanimously deleted previously as not fostering collaboration. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User en-nz-N

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a subcategory of a non-ISO national dialect of English which have been unanimously merged to their parent category previously. See here for related precedent. Lone member is already in the parent category, so a merge is unnecessary. I'd support deleting the parent category as well since I don't think it helps Wikipedia to know who speaks regional variants of English (I think knowing they speak English alone is sufficient, no need to distingush "New Zealand English" vs. "American English", for instance), but that argument is best saved for its own nomination. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like country music

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted per G7. –xeno (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, "who like" country music is unencyclopedic and does not support collaboration. We already have Category:Wikipedians who listen to country music, we definitely don't need this as well. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. - There was already a similiar category? Well I should have known. Go ahead and delete it. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users with tinnitus

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, "users" is an improper naming convention, and we have previously deleted all "Wikipedians by medical condition" categories. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Strange things

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is completely unencyclopedic. Additionally, "Strange" is improperly capitalized. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User sc-0

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a 0-level category which have been unanimously deleted previously as not fostering collaboration. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use gNewSense GNU/Linux

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a "Wikipedians by operating system" category, all of which were previously deleted here as inappropriate categories for Wikipedia. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians opposed to date-autoformatting

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Let me first note that UCFD has been merged here, so this is the proper venue for this nomination. As for the category, it is a "Wikipedians who support/oppose" category, which have been unanimously deleted previously as being inappropriate categories for Wikipedia. See here for related precedent. Note to closer: Please use Template:Ucfd top when closing this. VegaDark (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none of these categories contribute to the collaborative goal of the project. "I like it when people wish me a happy Wiki-birthday" is not a reason for keeping. Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - when I made the above comment all of the user categories were part of a single nomination. Rather than I clutter the discussion with multiple identical !votes, please note that my comment in this CFD applies equally to all of the above user category discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useful to collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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