Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/February 2007

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | User‎ | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2007)
< January 2007 March 2007 >

February 27 edit

Category:Users Who Have Found Selfworm's Hidden Page edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, tagged CSD G7 instead per author's request. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. No need to categorize users into this. I'll admit it was somewhat hard to resist signing my name on the page for a free barnstar, but it was a bit too silly for my taste. VegaDark 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AIM proficiency categories edit

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 all but 0 to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger; delete 0 per precedent.--Mike Selinker 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need proficiency categories for instant messaging programs. All should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger. VegaDark 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all as nominator. VegaDark 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who use AIM per nom reasons - I don't think that there is a need to spell it out in this case. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, per jc37. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. Separate categories aren't necessary. PeaceNT 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have a preference over AIM or the spelled out version, but the spelled out version already exists so it would just be more work for the closing admin to move everything in that category over. VegaDark 21:14, 4 March 2007 (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.

Neopets categories edit

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 all to Category:Wikipedians who play Neopets.--Mike Selinker 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first three should be upmerged to the parent category of Category:Wikipedians who play Neopets. Categorizing past that is not helpful and is overcategorization. Note that there are 51 other types of Neopets that, thankfully, do not have a category for them yet. Let's stop this trend before we are going to have to nominate all 54. The last should be merged since it is a duplicate with different wording. VegaDark 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all as nominator. VegaDark 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Personally, I once owned a Blumaroo, and I don't want to have to maintain a category about him or any other Neopet species. However, it might be reasonable to merge them all (including "Wikipedians who play Neopets") into Category:Wikipedians who own Neopets, as Neopets is not a game per se. It's a collection of activities involving maintaining a pet, playing a bunch of mini-games, buying cool stuff, and so on. It's more of a lifestyle site than a game site.--Mike Selinker 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine by me as long as they all get merged to something. VegaDark 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "who are entertained by"; "who interact with"; "who take care of"... I think it's fair to say that one typically does this for entertainment value - "play". This would seem to be no different than buying equipment for a character in some MMORPG. Therefore, "who play" would seem to be fine for this form of entertainment. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who play Neopets per nom, and my comments above. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. PeaceNT 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All per norm. Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 01:06, 5 March 2007 (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 are Cancer edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. I recently speedied Category:Wikipedians who are Gemini for the same reason. VegaDark 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly different wording on a recreated zodiac category.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are currently being watched by he who must not be named edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's Hastur or Voldemort, but regardless, it's no good as a category.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 26 edit

Category:Wikipedians who report vandalism edit

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.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A well-intentioned category, but unfortunately it is not helpful at all. All Wikipedians should revert/report vandalism if it becomes necessary. I see no reason why someone would go looking into this category to find users. We don't need to categorize this, a userbox is enough. VegaDark 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PeaceNT 10:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.. Also, there is the CVU for something. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just because all should, doesn't mean all do. Some Wikipedians may not be aware of how, or have the inclination to. And those who do may not be (and of course need not be) members of the CVU. Any other/better reasons for deleting this category? - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The same reasoning could be used for a category called Wikipedians who do not follow Wikipedia policies. Just because they should follow the policies doesn't mean they do follow them. But, of course, we would still delete the category. VegaDark 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not policy that anyone must report vandalism, any more than it's policy that anyone must edit Wikipedia, so your analogy doesn't apply. Remember that we are a community of volunteers, and if a category helps these volunteers in their voluntary actions, then so much the better. - jc37 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, what use would categorizing users in to this category serve? VegaDark 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a "push" of late going over existing policies/guidelines/etc. And I would think someone who might be working on the Vandalism policies/guidelines pages would find this category very helpful in looking for those with such experience. As I mentioned before, you don't have to be a member of an organisation (such as the CVU) to perform a task, or to be knowledgeable in that task. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the creator of this category--I just thought that it would be a nice alternative to the already overloaded CVU category. I didn't realize that there would be a reason that it shouldn't exist...i mean, there's categories for nearly EVERYTHING. If it is deleted, I won't really mind. – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - well-intentioned but not required. Metamagician3000 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least merge into CVU. Creator made the cat to avoid overburdening "CVU", which while is good-intentioned does not constitute a valid reason to create a cat. Xiner (talk, email) 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I read above. He said that it was intended as an "alternative" category choice. An alternative to joining the CVU... - jc37 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "nice alternative" to "the 'already overloaded' CVU category". That doesn't read to me like someone who doesn't want to join CVU. Xiner (talk, email) 17:06, 28 February 2007 (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 drink far too much milk edit

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.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food category, which we have historically deleted. Does not help encyclopedia building to categorize users into this. VegaDark 10:42, 26 February 2007 (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 dislike being barefoot edit

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.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "not" category violation. Does not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PeaceNT 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what a surprise that a lot of people belong to this cat. Except for aborigines, who would like barefoot? Causesobad → (Talk) 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NOT Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "not" category. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per WP:NOT, --Darkest Hour Δ 20:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the boot into this one - not useful. Metamagician3000 04:23, 27 February 2007 (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.

Users who speak Bork! Bork! Bork! categories edit

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 all.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This language is the language of Swedish Chef, a fictional character on The Muppet Show. This should be deleted because this is a non-existent language, and these are joke categories. Nobody can speak this at different proficiencies. Does not help Wikipedia to categorize users into these categories. Silly stuff like this can be constrained to userboxes, we don't need categories as well. VegaDark 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator. --Bduke 11:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per above. Causesobad → (Talk) 17:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Joke → Trash on sight ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll propose this elsewhere, but I think that such language categories should be confined to a single category, and have no need for the babel breakdown. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User BBB. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? This is a fictional language. If I create VegaDarklish does that mean I get to create a category for it? If we allow one fictional language, that opens the door to create infinite fictional language categories. VegaDark 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I am unaware of VegaDarkish being known internationally, as BBB is. - jc37 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any author who invents a language in a book they write could get their fictional language known of internationally, which would mean potentially thousands of Wikipedia language categories. VegaDark 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were true, such categories would already exist by now. - jc37 00:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and see this link. 1414 constructed languages. How many are actually Wikipedia categories? We could easily justify at least the top 200 as categories if they came before WP:UCFD : ) - jc37 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if that site simply lists the most popular languages looked up on their website. I don't see how that has any relevance if it doesn't say how many people actually speak each language, or if there are any native speakers. Also note that niether Bork Bork Bork nor Gibberish are even on that list, showing just how obscure these really are. VegaDark 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are better ways to identify users with an interest in failed candidates for the US Supreme Court ... or whatever. Metamagician3000 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might be relevant constructed languages. For example, Sindarin or Quenya or Klingon (ok, yes I'm a nerd) all of which have far more speakers, have large amounts written about them, and are actually relevant to building an encyclopedia (if for example, you are writing an article on a Tolkien subject and you want to know how to describe the pronounciation, a quenya speaker will most likely know where in Tolkien's work to refer you to). However, Bork is not such a language. While amusing, this has no usefulness for writting an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    whisper it ... : Metamagician3000 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a Joke Just let the Joke live.--St.daniel 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No joke, please. PeaceNT 15:23, 1 March 2007 (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.

February 25 edit

Users who speak gibberish categories edit

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 all.--Mike Selinker 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent language. Joke categories. Nobody can speak gibberish at different proficiencies. Does not help Wikipedia to categorize users into these categories. Silly stuff like this can be constrained to userboxes, we don't need categories as well. VegaDark 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator. We do not need categories, and the templates should be in user space if they are not already. --Bduke 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree, however as of right now they are not in the userspace. Any volunteers to "deal" with that? :) VegaDark 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - frivolous category. Metamagician3000 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - They are just joke categories. Tyler Nelson 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, was this cat created on April 1st? Causesobad → (Talk) 17:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Joke → Trash on sight ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll propose this elsewhere, but I think that such language categories should be confined to a single category, and have no need for the babel breakdown. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User gb. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User gb. — CJewell (talk to me) 06:46, 27 February 2007 (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 who understand ParserFunctions edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions - jc37 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions per user category naming conventions.VegaDark 07:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users of Slavic ancestry edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians of Slavic ancestry.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Slavic Wikipedians per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. VegaDark 07:48, 25 February 2007 (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 who like Xiaolin Showdown edit

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

The result of the debate was deleted and moved by myself—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who like Xiaolin Showdown per user category naming conventions. VegaDark 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. VegaDark 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for the sake of consistency. PeaceNT 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew there was something up with that template when Bobabobabo was messing with it. Renaming will be easy. Just let me change the template and then this will no longer be necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who know Cremepuff222 and Category:Wikipedians who know Crempuff222 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category names speak for themselves. Are we prepared to have one of these for each of Wikipedia's 3,663,373 users? VegaDark 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as nominator. VegaDark 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. We don't need these cats. PeaceNT 07:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 23:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - It sounds like self-advertising to me. Tyler Nelson 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what these? Causesobad → (Talk) 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → WP:SNOW Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The second can be speedy deleted as an obvious typo in the userbox (Which I just fixed). The first is a result of a userbox, which is listed among several similar others on User:Cremepuff222/OriginalBoxes. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The others don't have categories associated with them, however. VegaDark 20:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I was showing the page to show that there are others along these lines. I apparently didn't mention that I support deletion in this case : ) - jc37 21:11, 26 February 2007 (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 have selected the "fut" series userbox edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by user request below. VegaDark 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a category made just for the sake of having one associated with the userbox. Does not facilitate collaboration, does not help Wikipedia in any way. VegaDark 06:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 06:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of that category and the userboxes that are associated with it, I was merely curious as to how many users had chosen my handiwork. That was the first (and easiest) method that came to my mind to keep track of such a thing. If there is another method of keeping track (or if the category just needs to go,) I won't stand in the way of the deletion of the category in question. Doublediapason 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can check who is using it by going to the page the template is located on and clicking the "What links here" link on the left side of the screen. Everyone that has "(Transclusion)" next to their name are using the userbox. VegaDark 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → User:Vegadark Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ignoring that it's a userbox for a moment, this is a category which has members based on what pages have the template transcluded. A category in this case should exist (and be named) based on the subject of the template, not the template itself. So, for example, a category listing all the categories up for deletion, should refer to that, not that every member of the category has a CFD template transcluded. Hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. Very well, I am appeased. Do with the category as you see fit. Thank goodness for diplomacy, eh? Doublediapason 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who can't watch The Late Show anymore edit

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.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No use to Wikipedia. "Not" category, does not facilitate collaboration, keeping would justify creation of "cannot watch ____ show anymore" category for any TV show. VegaDark 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it fast. Xiner (talk, email) 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nonsense. PeaceNT 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "who can't watch The Late Show anymore" sounds like "has died". Causesobad → (Talk) 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → NOT category Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom ("not" category, and a bad idea for the start of a trend), and because, unless it's clarified why such cannot watch such-n-such show anymore, this could duplicate a category of blind Wikipedians. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny, jc37. Causesobad → (Talk) 08:17, 27 February 2007 (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.

February 24 edit

Category:User has a Wii and Category:Wii hopefuls to Category:Wikipedians who play Wii edit

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 the first, delete the second.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both need to be merged per past precedent. VegaDark 23:26, 24 February 2007 (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 are neither a Republican nor a Democrat edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, G7. Picaroon 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "not" category violation. We have categories for whatever political party the user might be in, they can add themselves to those. VegaDark 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's also not apparent that this is an American cat, to many people anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is bad enough having a US-centric political category, but to have a "not" one is ... Ugh! --Bduke 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → NOT category Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "not" category. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 08:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, fine, delete it. I'll speedily request it then. I'm going to have to find another category... Nol888(Talk) 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who wish they had a omnitrix to Category:Wikipedians who like Ben 10 edit

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.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs renaming per naming conventions in Category:Wikipedians interested in television. VegaDark 22:07, 24 February 2007 (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.

4 Alma mater categories edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These all need to be renamed/merged because they all start with "users" instead of "Wikipedians". Also we need to have a standard naming convention for high school categories. VegaDark 21:47, 24 February 2007 (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 on Desciclopédia edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge.--Mike Selinker 10:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent consensus to merge the Wikipedians on Eincyclopedia (The Hebrew language version of Uncyclopedia) category to Category: Wikipedians who use Uncyclopedia, this should be no different. VegaDark 06:44, 24 February 2007 (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:Memphis Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say this should be renamed to Wikipedians from/in Memphis, but in this case I think the category should be deleted because the only userpage in the category is MfD material (two near-identical user pages were nomitated by Xiner a while back and were both deleted). VegaDark 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, one page still remains. I've nominated it for deletion though, again. Xiner (talk, email) 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 07:13, 24 February 2007 (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 in Serbia and Montenegro edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. I'll make any templates that use this category switch to Category:Wikipedians in Serbia per Duja, if a user ends up in the wrong cat they can simply remove themselves. VegaDark 20:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem like a hot potato, but the country exists no more, and we already have categories for the former constituent states.

  • Delete as nominator. Xiner (talk, email) 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians from Serbia and Montenegro, since you can technically no longer be "in" the country any more but you can be from it. VegaDark 03:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's the Wikipedians from the Balkans, from Serbia, etc., but I'd accept a rename as well. Xiner (talk, email) 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per VegaD. Causesobad → (Talk) 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The intent of the category was in. Since the country no longer exists as such, the category should be deleted, so that the users can place themselves in whatever the correct category would be. Opposing "from", in this case. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the second time I'm changing my vote. Sorry. Restoring my original vote, per jc37. We know they're all in the Balkans. Xiner (talk, email) 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How can you come from a non-existent state?? Amlder20 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more of a question of living in a non-existent state, but yeah. Xiner (talk, email) 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians in Serbia, then Delete. As far as I can tell, all of those are from Serbia (not from Montenegro); I suppose it's an artifact that all of them simply forgot, or are inactive. Duja► 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 23 edit

Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa edit

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.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not benefit encyclopedia in any way I can think of. I could possibly see a rename if someone wants to propose something that could facilitate collaboration on more than one article. VegaDark 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We have other categories just as silly, and why not add some comic relief to relieve pressure on stressed Wikipedians? --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid, since if you get stressed out on Wikipedia, go somewhere else to relieve the stress.--WaltCip 03:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A joke category. I was about to nominate it when I go to bed, and found it already nominated. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 09:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we should hesitate before deleting belief-based user categories. As someone who is a member of the category, I don't consider it a joke category by any means. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then prove that Santa exists. You can't.--WaltCip 03:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, take a moment to read Santa Claus. You'd find that Saint Nicholas was a real person, and existed. But that aside, one does not have to prove the target of a belief "exists" or "existed" in order for the belief to exist. And considering the multiple articles related to this topic, I think that you'd be hard pressed to say that this topic isn't notable. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I give a lot of leeway to most well-populated things in category:Wikipedians by religion.--Mike Selinker 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless we are to start subjectively killing off "lesser" religions in Category:Wikipedians by religion, we shouldn't get rid of this one. Benefits the encyclopedia just as much as any other user category — not at all. --- RockMFR 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Santa is as much a religious figure as the tooth fairy. Xiner (talk, email) 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Santa Claus can be seen, with good justification, as the posthumous evolution of the image of Saint Nicholas. This makes him relational to a religious figure in Catholicism, Anglicanism. Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. The Tooth fairy is not based on any saint or holy person I'm aware of and is not even significant in paganism so far as I can tell.--T. Anthony 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with T Anthony. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A little bit of a joke category, but where does it say in policies or guidelines that wikipedia cant be a bit of a laugh  .Tellyaddict 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh... it doesn't make me laugh.--WaltCip 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jokes are allowed in userboxes, but usercats are supposed to help find others with similar interests. Xiner (talk, email) 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-populated. I see no reason to delete this.--Grace E. Dougle 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would not be the first or last well-populated usercat to be deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not facilitate encyclopedia building; joke cat. Not religious, Mike. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Obviously a rediculous and childish category, no one would take this seriously! Amlder20 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not meant be taken seirousally its a joke!!!--St.daniel 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This category shouldn't even be in Wikipedians by religion. What religion proclaims that adherents should believe in Santa? None. This isn't a religion, it is a joke. VegaDark 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "should", "may". And perhaps the category should be renamed to category:Wikipedians by religious or philosophical belief, since some of the members of the category might not call themselves a religion, but a philosophy... - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per VegaDark's comment. --The Dark Side 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - frivolous and useless. Metamagician3000 01:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Related to religion, if not a religion per-say, and very culturally relevant. IronGargoyle 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IronGargoyle. bibliomaniac15 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KillerChihuahua. Useless. --Bduke 07:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is a religious category viewpoint and I see considerable users in it. Tooth fairy is funny :). Causesobad → (Talk) 07:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What religion? Can you link to a Wikipedia article that says believing in Santa is a religion?--WaltCip 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. Here's the definition I get from article Religion: "A Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a number of persons. Religious adherence to codified beliefs and rituals generally involves faith in spirituality and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction." Another point: "Other religions believe in personal revelation and responsibility. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions." The belief in Santa can be considered a "religion" in the narrow meaning of "religion", since it's held by a considerable number of persons. Causesobad → (Talk) 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition, Category:Wikipedians who believe in the Tooth Fairy would be a religion. Would you advocate keeping that category as well? VegaDark 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it has been deleted yet. Causesobad → (Talk) 10:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No more of a joke than other invisible deities. Crumbsucker 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Link them and we'll nominate them too. The fact that other trash exist, don't allow this category to exist. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said anything was trash. I said none are better or worse than the other (in theory at least). Crumbsucker 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wachholder0 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Agree with CreamPuff --St.daniel 15:18, 1 March 2007 (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 Eritrea to Category:Wikipedians in Eritrea edit

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: withdrawn. I recommend a group nom for all "from" categories next time, or simply open a discussion about these types of categories in general to determine what the consensus on these is. VegaDark 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not following the common naming convention of the rest of Category:Wikipedians by location. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of these days I'll create a "Wikipedians in" supercat. I believe that if we have two classes of categories - "from" and "in" - then we'll have solved the location problems. If we don't, then we'll have the situation in article categories, where they have Canadian expats, Canadian emigrants, Canadians immigrants in US, Canadian Americans...Xiner (talk, email) 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There are tons of "Wikipedians from" categories, if they are to be renamed it needs to be in a group nom. And I'm not sure we even want to rename them all to "in", last I remember there seemed to be more of a consensus to change them all to "from". We also may end up having both "from" and "in" categories, there needs to be a big discussion on this. VegaDark 05:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to note that the change also changes the definition. If moved, I wouldn't be able to include myself since even though I am Eritrean, I don't live there. --Ted87 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 out of 3 users are not actually in Eritrea...  Grue  07:24, 23 February 2007 (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:Filipino Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Philippines edit

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: withdrawn by nominator. VegaDark 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not following the common naming convention of the rest of Category:Wikipedians by location. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 02:20, 23 February 2007 (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 Grade 5 flautists and Category:Wikipedian Grade 8 pianists edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 11:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User flute-4 and Category:User piano-4 are for playing at a professional level, so you can't get any higher than that. No other instrument categories have a level 5 or 8 category, also these aren't named using the proper conventions and flute has a typo. VegaDark 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per VegaDark. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete VegaDark, be bold. Xiner (talk, email) 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I mention this because I'm not sure everyone's aware: Grade 8 and grade 5 are skill levels within a teaching scheme (for example: piano method, grade 8), and the numbers themselves have nothing to do with the numbers of the babel system. That said, I think this is over cat, and if they weren't already empty (I hope that they weren't emptied before this discussion was finished), I would suggest that they be merged to the appropriate babel level. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a user in each of these at the time of nominating, they have since removed themself it appears. VegaDark 19:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, preferably right away. That's a style that could spread quickly to other categories.--Mike Selinker 14:20, 23 February 2007 (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 citizens of Lovely edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely isn't a real nation. And it hasn't citizenship. If you don't want to directly trash it, we can rename it so something like Category:Wikipedians interested in Lovely.

  • Delete as nominator. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This was nominated before and I think it ended in no consensus. It has to do with Lovely (micronation). Regardless, this isn't helpful to categorize users in to. VegaDark 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userbox material. Xiner (talk, email) 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an illustration of the concept of a borderless community that the internet creates. "Citizens of" is more pointed than "interested in" for the very reason that 'citizenship' requires no bureaucratic intervention, but rather an elegantly voluntary declaration. And... it's funny. ∞Renice 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my thoughts in the previous discussion. However, I wouldn't be opposed to Keep and making this a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by website, with its current name. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can't understand a thing that Renice is saying.--WaltCip 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant and at first it seems like lovely is a place which I'm not sure whether it is or not.Tellyaddict 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If moon citizenship category was deleted, so should be this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the category system is not a place to make declarations of support, which is what this seems to amount to. Metamagician3000 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, knowing citizens of an unreal nation for what? Causesobad → (Talk) 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some people have too much time on their hands, thats what this is. Amlder20 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in Wikipedia edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it means "Wikipedians interested in Wikipedia"? I think it's a joke category. Anyway, it really doesn't help cooperation between users in any way. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worth a laugh though. Xiner (talk, email) 01:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category would include everyone with an account. --The Dark Side 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I created this, and I don't care if it's deleted.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only added a zh interwiki link on the category. I don't care if it's deleted. (but as hundreds of users are in the category in zh Wikipedia, I think there would be deserved for keeping.) --✉Hello World! 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this is a leftover from a possible solution to what to do with the Wikipedians listed under Category:Wikipedians. I moved the subcat and the project page to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [Clarified by MS below - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) ][reply]
  • Delete Taking up unnecessary server space, if editors were not interested they would not edit wikipedia, I mean - think about it!Tellyaddict 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, sorry Mike Selinker. I don't think every user must like Wiki but your cat is redundant. Causesobad → (Talk) 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User 1337-X edit

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.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up babel level category for a non-ISO language. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several Category:User 1337 and related categories. A group nom may be appropriate here. Xiner (talk, email) 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but I anticipate there are several people who would support keeping the 1-5 categories, whereas I don't think many if any will support keeping the X, N, and 0 level categories. Therefore, I don't want these to be kept via no consensus if a group nom of all the 1337 categories results in that. I will nominate the 1-5 categories as a group if I choose to nominate them, however. VegaDark 00:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • c|31337 this and the ones below. I think it's fine to have 1-4 on this, but not the native, 0 or X categories.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure there's any benefit to breaking this "language" into proficiency levels. It's not like this is a chatroom helpdesk. :) Xiner (talk, email) 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → Since the cannot speak in that language, since there isn't a 1337 wikipedia and there will never be one, it doesn't facilitate cooperation. Personally, I won't stand against any kind of userbox, so I suggest that the userbox is enough... Isn't it? Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Leet is merely a question of substitution text script, and not a language. One could do the same by converting this whole page to greek characters - the page would still be in the English language, just not using the typical Roman characters. As such, I think we should not babelise character usage. That should take care of this and any other similar situations. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User 1337, per my comments above. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (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 1337-N edit

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.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native speaker category I missed earlier. Can't be true as there are no native speakers of 1337, does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Wikipedians interested in leet then. Xiner (talk, email) 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No native Leet speakers. WODUP 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 10:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → my opinion at WP:UCFD#Category:User 1337-X Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User 1337, per my comments in the nomination above. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • |<339: |7'5 |=|_||\||\|`/, 4|\||) |7'5 |\|()7 |-||_||27||\|(-, /-\|\|`/7|-|1|\|(-,. (Translation: Keep: it's funny, and it's not hurting anything.) Pyrospirit Flames Fire 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being funny and not hurting anything are not reasons to keep a category. If that were the case there would be infinite categories that do not help encyclopedia building simply because one person thought it was funny. And I would argue that it does hurt something- The credibility of the user category system, which we are trying to restore faith in. VegaDark 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 0|<, 50 j00Z 0B\/10U5L'/ d0 |\|07 7|-|1|\||< 7|-|@ 4 (47390R'/ 5U(|-| 45 7|-|15 15 b4D. 7|-|3|\| 4941|\|, 1'/\/\ 5UR3 j00Z pR0B4BL'/ \/\/0ULD |\|07 /\/\1|\|D 1Ph 7|-|3 3|\|71R3 \/\/1|<1P3D14 (0/\/\/\/\U|\|17'/ 74L|<3D 1|\| L337 $P34|<, 4|\|D d1D|\|'7 3\/3|\| b07|-|3R 70 7R4|\|5L473 17 Ph0R 7|-|3 54|<3 0Ph PhR33D0/\/\ 0Ph 5P33(|-| 0R "U53PhUL|\|355". 1, Ph0R 0|\|3, d0|\|'7 533 4 U53 Ph0R 7|-|15 (47390R'/ \/\/|-|47503\/3R. $4'/1|\|9 7|-|@ 17 d035|\|'7 |-|UR7 4|\|'/0|\|3 p4\/35 7|-|3 \/\/4'/ Ph0R /\/\1LL10|\|5 0Ph 5UP3RPhLU0U5 (47390R135 70 b3 (R3473D... My point is, the category has to go, period.--WaltCip 11:55, 1 March 2007 (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 1337-0 edit

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.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This user has no idea what the hell 1337 is and/or prefers to contribute using proper words." - 0-level non-iso language category that does not facilitate collaboration. Also a "not" category. VegaDark 00:31, 23 February 2007 (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:Banker Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian bankers edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename - jc37 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every other category in Wikipedians by profession is following a common syntax. This one should too. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who support changing the New Zealand flag to Category:Wikipedians who support changing the flag of New Zealand edit

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

The result of the debate was rename, no consensus for deletion. Feel free to renominate this for deletion in the future, however. VegaDark 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NCCAT. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Delete per below, too specific to support collaboration. VegaDark 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not appropriate to categorise users by single-issue political positions. Metamagician3000 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree that it's not useful--much too narrow.DGG 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Metamagician3000. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --James Bond 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see a problem with this, it's merely another Wikipedian "who supports"/"who opposes" category. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My parents' relatives being of New Zealand descent, I haven't heard too much about this, and the current rename stature is kind of awkward.--WaltCip 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who oppose welfare reform to Category:Wikipedians who oppose welfare reform in the United States edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. VegaDark 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't explain what welfare reform. By closer look on the simbol of the related userbox I've guessed it's the United States's one. So, for WP:NCCAT, I suggest renaming. However, I wouldn't oppose a deletion. Also, one user only. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Keep Anyone who comes up with a better title can change it as far as I care. I created the cat a while ago and don't mind. Editor19841 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think we should use the category system to categorise users by political positions. Metamagician3000 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :Editor1984, as it's a one person cat, wouldnt a userbox better fit your needs?DGG 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 22 edit

Category:Wikipedians for gender equality edit

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:Wikipedians who support gender equality. VegaDark 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everybody should be in this category. Doesn't facilitate collaboration. Only one user. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many women are against this because they fear the draft, etc. It's definitely not everyone. Xiner (talk, email) 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who support Equalism since Gender equality redirects to Equalism. VegaDark 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the links to Equalism#Gender equality, and oppose the renaming because racial equalism is a very different issue. Xiner (talk, email) 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it is a very different issue but I don't think categories that don't have an article specifically associated with them help. My view is that if an article redirects to something, the category should represent the redirect target, not any of the redirected titles. VegaDark 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lack of an article may simply mean that no one has bothered to write enough about the subject. We have a whole article on the Equal Rights Amendment, for example, an example by the way of the presence of a disagreement among the public on the issue. The section on gender equality is two paragraphs long - that is no measure of the significance of the issue and merely points to the lack of substantial contributions on the issue. Xiner (talk, email) 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with that in this case, but the problem with using that argument is that anyone could use that argument to justify a category about an article that doesn't yet exist. I think the only way to combat that is if/when such an article is made, then we should allow the category, but not until then. VegaDark 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just as AfD voters should judge whether a stub can be expanded - not just on what has been written so far - we should also encourage usercats for which no article page exists yet, so that some people in the cat may actually start writing on the topic. I thus do not agree with the article requirement. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not commenting on this discussion specifically, except to agree in general that we should not require a specific article as a criteria to keep a user category. (Mike Selinker convinced me of this awhile back : ) - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not everyone is in that category, even if I agree with the nominator that everyone should be. It is a useful category.--Grace E. Dougle 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Wikipedians who support gender equality to match conventions of category:Wikipedians by politics. Definitely not a universally held view. Equality battles are often not about discrimination on a legal level, just different treatment. Witness the All England Club, who just gave Wimbledon winners equal pay for equal wins this week, and the folks at Augusta National, who still don't let women join their club. That's wrong in my opinion, but the laws don't always agree.--Mike Selinker 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do people have to support women having more rights than men or the opposite thing ? I created this category because I think the best thing is that everyone had the same right and was treated the same way. The fact that, by now, I'm the only wikipedian who supports gender equality shouldn't make this category be deleted. Gothbag (talk, 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and treat Category:Wikipedians against gender equality the same way if it is ever created. Metamagician3000 12:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to category:Wikipedians who support gender equality per Mike Selinker. And Gothbag, I'll join your cat right now. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Wikipedians who support gender equality per Mike S. and consistancy. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this name is better than the current one, so as there will obviously not be a consensus to name to what I suggested above this would be my second choice. VegaDark 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mike S. because there are indeed people out there who are not part of this category.
  • keep and rename to category:Wikipedians who support gender equality even though I DISAGREE with gender equality. — CJewell (talk to me) 07:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users Wish Lists edit

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.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. Do we need this? Only one user. If no consensus to delete, it at minimum needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedian wish lists. VegaDark 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trash it right away. It doesn't facilitate cooperation and it's totally useless and unrelated to wikipedia, clearly. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wish it be gone. Xiner (talk, email) 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --The Dark Side 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • XfD aren't ruled by votes. The are discussions. So, can you please expand your "vote"? Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Christmas is over and the title is a bit misleading. --The Dark Side 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I almost never quote the WP:NOT mantra of "Wikipedia is not MySpace", but ouch at this one. The category should go, at the very least. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a shopping center.--WaltCip 11:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish I had a pony. Wikipedia will not get me one.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Best explanation I've seen in awhile : ) - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless category. Metamagician3000 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't judge the cat in such cold blood, Metamagician3000. What do your wish for next Christmas? Causesobad → (Talk) 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just another daft category, shame some of these can't be deleted rather quickly!Amlder20 18:27, 28 February 2007 (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:Fascist Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#Category:Fascist_Wikipedians. VegaDark 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, clearly against Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 22:27, 22 February 2007 (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.

February 21 edit

Wikipedians born in (YEAR) edit

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

The result of the debate was re-structure as per the following conditions:

  • Delete age categories for Wikipedians under 18, as the costs (eternal arguing about protecting the children and plus the probability of child predators lurking the categories) outweigh the benefits (serving as a medium for youth to find other youth).
  • Merging the age categories into decade-like blocks, e.g. Category:Wikipedians in their 20s, Category:Wikipedians in their 30s, etc. I am not sure how a category for Wikipedians aged 18 and 19 would work; someone can figure that out. This allows for wanted age grouping yet it cuts down on the "social networking" categories.

This is an attempt at compromising the parties with differing opinions. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of every last user category, but that would cause more edits towards complaining about the deletion/advocating the deletion than towards articles. A lot of articles need help, you know. How about we move away towards the user categories for a while and take a look at articles needing improvement? Or how about reducing the various backlogs?

I may be weighing in on this matter now, and while this UCFD would traditionally be closed as a no-consensus, that will mean all this talking and notvoting would have been in vain. Something had to be accomplished. If you want my proposed plan to happen, make it so. If you think my plan is bad, then find a solution quick or none of our articles will get any better. Remember the Prime Directive. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss this, please do so on this Community Noticeboard post. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is not a "nomination for deletion" of any specific article or set of categories (ok, fine, it is. but what I meant when I wrote this is that a consensus arrived at here may be to restore categories presently deleted). I know I'm breaking the format, but I think that with all the back-and-forth/wheel-warring/WP:POINT/general chaos on this issue, the time has come to ignore that. So... While this is still not a vote, instead of not-voting keep or delete etc, I would like for you to all instead not-vote with the following choices:

Allow all - Allow all birth year categories (i.e., so far as 2007)
13 and over only - Allow (as of 2007) 1993? 1994? and earlier.
18 and over only - Allow (as of 2007) 1989? 1988? and earlier.
No specific years - Upmerge all specific year categories to decades.
Remove all - Eliminate this entire class of user categories.

You can of course come up with another appropriate not-vote text and state your position and reasoning behind it.

  • Remove allNo specific years - I think these categories, as a group, fall under the WP:UBX recommendation "Do not create categories which could potentially include all Wikipedians". These aren't particularly useful categories. --Random832 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Amarkov makes a good point about the usefulness of decade cats[reply]
  • Remove all if only because we don't want adults to be forced into these cats or children to advertise themselves. Xiner (talk, email) 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years. Decades have some degree of collaborative usefulness, since you can get people who would know about a certain span of time. Specific years have no such usefulness. But we already did this not that long ago. -Amarkov moo! 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. I see no problem with these categories. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to use them or not.--Grace E. Dougle 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. It's lame to compare decade cats with specific years cats. Being born in 1990 and 1999 are totally different. PeaceNT 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years - but I could see going in 5 year chunks instead of 10. There is a huge difference in 10 years but users within 5 years of eachother can reasonably be grouped together, so that someone may seek out someone from a particular era for collaboration. I'd probably make the most recent "born in 1985-1990", and not create the 1991-1995 category for a few years. If no consensus for this just remove all. VegaDark 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • chunks but I could also see no specific years at all. In any case, not below a certain age 16 suggested as compromise between 13 and 18. DGG 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all. So long as any of them exist, editors are going to argue about individual categories. I can't see how they help to build an encyclopedia in any case. Not MySpace and all that. My quick and dirty survey suggests that most Wikipedians don't know which year they were born in as they haven't categorised themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years: per Amarkov. Causesobad → (Talk) 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all these may be used for various age-related statistics when someone will be writing a paper on Wikipedia, and we want more of these, right?  Grue  10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years with no decade for 1990 - 1999 (until 2008), and 2000 - 2010. --Bduke 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. This category is one of the most important and fundamental on Wikipedia. This pedophiles-on-the-internet business is a huge moral panic that should be avoided. Christopher Connor 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stop the merry go round, I want to get off! by my own tally, this will be the 5th time this matter (and related matters) have hit user categories for deletion, two deletion reviews, an RfC and a case before the arbcom. It's time to just... let... it... go. If eliminating all user year categories is the way to go, I have no objection, it's not exactly a useful category for collaboration anyway. While I reject that every last user cat should be identically-named and immedialy of encyclopedic use, there should be a general purpose, knowing someone is a fan of a game/movie/ect. means that they might be willing to help you with a related article, knowing someone's other interests might help you bring articles to their attention, but age categories do nothing productive. As a note on potential compromises, I don't care if it's chunks or years, but the issue of categorization of minors has been adiquately covered before, the consensus is clear, repeatedly, Jimbo even weighed in (yeah, not exactly binding, but I like Jimbo!). Wintermut3 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. The DRV debates have shown that arbitrary cut-offs don't work. There seems to be a demand for these, so allow all of them. I'll be the first to add myself to Category:Wikipedians born in 2007 :D --- RockMFR 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13+ only. These seem fine, but I do believe that those under 13 need protection, which unfortunately means restrictions on their behavior in this case.--Mike Selinker 04:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adult only - As mentioned above, we've recently had an arbcom case about this, and one of the results was that children should be counselled if they list their ages on their userpages. This, by its very nature would include user categories. So at least that part has been determined for us. However, the actual age that one is to be considered a "child" was not a part of the results. There was a finding that Consequences of absence of policy is that if there is no policy, handling should be on a case-by-case basis. So it would seem what we have to decide is for the purpose of this page (which concerns user categories), at what age is a person no longer a child? It would seem that, in general, the number is somewhere between 13 and 18. So I suggest this compromise: The year categories which would show a Wikipedian as older than 18 should be "just fine" (as MS said above), and 13 to 18 year old Wikipedians grouped in some different way (but not subcategorised by age - something like: Category:Wikipedians between 13 and 18 years old), with no category for those under 13. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's debatable whether or not Arbcom has the power to dictate things like that, but it's irrelevant here, because they did not say that identifying as a child is banned. If you think that a category should be banned, then that's fine, but don't invoke a nonexistent Arbcom ruling about it. -Amarkov moo! 04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes they did. I'll have to go back over the findings to give you some exact quotes. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all - irrelevant to editing an encyclopedia. If you want to reveal such information by all means put something on your userpage, but it's not an appropriate way to categorise users. Metamagician3000 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all - Useful for other users to join a wikipedia community of their own age, or year they were born. I thought this was about community building and healthy communication amongst the users in order to ensure that people don't end up in too many arguments over articles, creating a better freindly atmosphere, this is one way to do that. To add more, I do disbelieve that anyone under the age of 16, not 13 should be categorised in Wikpedia at all. Amlder20 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow all Wikipedia is not censored for minors. I will stand against every age-related stuff. Why? Because I think, and in my internet experience I've seen, that too many people judge other people by their age. So, even if I know that it's the user the one who puts himself in the category, I don't belive we should allow this kind of stuff. Even here at wikipedia, I've seen cases of wikipedians who judge other wikipedians on that base. Sorry - Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three parts to what I think:
    • 1. Delete under 13: COPPA (in the United States) would imply that we can't allow identification of those under 13.
    • 2. Merge 13-17: the "privacy protection" arbcom ruling seems to imply to me that we shouldn't allow SPECIFING what age a person is, although we can allow specifying that they ARE teenagers, at least to me.
    • 3. Allow 18 and above or merge as otherwise decided. I figure that adults can judge how much privacy they wish to have!
  • — CJewell (talk to me) 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • COPPA applies to commercial organizations who solicit the information. We do neither. Please, stop using COPPA as a justification, people. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate issue straw poll edit

This came up with 1993 and 1989 in particular: Should the year (or decade, if upmerged) in which some wikipedians are under the arbitrary age we choose and some are over, be allowed to exist as a category?

  • Yes. Revealing your birth year as (say)1989 does not reveal under-(say)18 status. --Random832 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No They can advertise it in text or with userboxes. Xiner (talk, email) 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify - do you also think that if the result is "no specific years", the 1980s category (and the 1990s category after 2008, or if we choose a cutoff age other than 18) should not exist?
    • I don't agree that any year should exist, as you know, but I do think that if kept, the year should be included like any other. A simple explanation note in the intro text can discourage underage users from adding themselves to it. Xiner (talk, email) 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. They can advertise it in text or with userboxes, but they can do that anyway. Should we delete Category:Wikipedians who play RuneScape? Because it's likely to have many children who can mention age on their userpage too. -Amarkov moo! 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Random32, but for 18 not 13. VegaDark 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Why does it really matter? It's not like on someone 18th birthday they're going to go log into wikipedia and update their counter... these categories are meaningless anyway Wintermut3 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that this is another example of why the decade cats should go. (Besides being subjective and arbitrary...) - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for what I've said just abot in the general discussion Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Native speakers of non-ISO language cats edit

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 all.--Mike Selinker 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is a native speaker of any of these. Having these categories is silly and in no way helps the encyclopedia. Let's clean some of this mess up, shall we? VegaDark 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator, not relevant to wikipedia.TellyaddictEditor review! 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'd support merging all the LOTR dialects, too. Xiner (talk, email) 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dialects? You should re-read your Tolkien, man. Jon Harald Søby 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which implies that this is original research, which is also forbidden.--WaltCip 11:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, "Native speaker of "Rotate by 13 places" language" => funny cat. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but note that qya is actually in ISO 639-3). Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except qya.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, Quenya is a constructed language with no native speakers. Why, then, would we need a category for native speakers of Quenya? Jon Harald Søby 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm surprised that no one else seems to agree that the Elvish cat should be merged with the "Black Speech of Mordor" ones in an umbrella, LOTR cat. Xiner (talk, email) 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shrug, no. The languages are very different. Jon Harald Søby 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, also, Orcish has ISO 639-3 code orq. This is, however, not the same as Black Speech, as the redirect/article implies, and not the same as what is meant in the category either (I guess). Jon Harald Søby 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm just worried that they'll all be deleted. Xiner (talk, email) 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Singling out individual segments of the language tree is silly. I'm not sure what the heck you gain by deleting these, other than feeling a little better about yourselves as deletionists. What you lose is consistency and uniformity across the Babel boxes. IronGargoyle 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments like this are in assumption of bad faith and are otherwise borderline WP:NPA. Watch yourself.--WaltCip 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Rename?) - see my comments on Black Speech and Quenya (only one of the "Elvish" languages) below. I agree that having "native" speakers for the two (three, including Sindarin) looks silly; "near-native" or "expert" is probably high enough for us mortals. If I could figure out what they mean, I'd change what they're saying when appropriate. Uthanc 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As others have stated, I support keeping the languages in general; but I do not see the need for native speakers of languages that surely no one has been born into. Of course, find me a references saying otherwise, and I'll let it go. On the other hand, I do not see the harm in such categories and userboxes -- those gimmicks are already commonplace in Wikipedia and I even see some of the higher-profile admins with them on their userpages. It helps lighten the mood of the sometimes hostile world of Wikipedia editing. --Thisisbossi 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. By the way, BBB is assuredly "Bork! Bork! Bork!"---Mike Selinker 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, no one is a native speaker of any of these constructed languages. They serve no useful purpose. —ptk✰fgs 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most - Elvish (both Sindarin and Quenya) and Klingon are actually being taught to children at an early age now, so there actually are individuals who could place themselves in such a category. However, such an exception should require that the constructed language be a "complete" one. (Mordor wouldn't count, for example.) But assuredly delete the rest. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any reliable sources that claim native speakers of those languages exist? VegaDark 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen them in the past. One such example is that Oregon or Washington (I don't recall which) was on a search for those who could speak Klingon, because they had people who would only speak Klingon, and they needed some way to communicate. I'll have to do some searching to refresh my memory. This, of course, sidesteps a larger question: How do we define "Native speaker"? - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • elete-day all-ay er-pay om-nay AgentPeppermint 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Delete the lot, each category is nonsence, just pointless waste of space on the encyclopedia. Amlder20 18:23, 28 February 2007 (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 Guitar Heros to Category:Wikipedians who play Guitar Hero edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians who play Guitar Hero.--Mike Selinker 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians who play video games. VegaDark 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. VegaDark 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The category name suggested does comply with WP:NC and would fit in more with other user categories.TellyaddictEditor review! 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename obviously I agree with the nominator and Tellyaddict. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. Note also that "heroes" is misspelled. —ptk✰fgs 08:27, 23 February 2007 (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 who are addicted to Presidents to Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians interested in United States Presidents.--Mike Selinker 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikilink in users addicted to presidents links to President of the United States by the way, before anyone points out that the US isn't the only country with a President. This user category has a couple problems. Says "Users" instead of Wikipedians and says addicted to presidents? That doesn't make any sense to me. VegaDark 03:09, 21 February 2007 (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.

February 20 edit

High school categories edit

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

The result of the debate was no action taken, looks like we will have to determine consensus once individual categories become nominated. VegaDark 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many naming conventions used at Category:Wikipedians by high school. There are a couple things we can do here. Personally I'm undecided if we even need these categories. College alumni cats are great, since Wikipedians by college allows for collaboration on many articles (see everything in Category:Oregon State University for instance) but Wikipedians by high school categories allow for collaboration on only a single article, the article on that high school. I don't think this is particularly helpful, I think categories should facilitate collaboration on at least several articles, or else we would be allowing creation of over 1.6 million user categories (one for each article). The next issue is all the different naming conventions. I think if these are to be kept they need a standard naming convention. The most-used one right now looks like "Wikipedians by High School:xxx high school" but I'm pretty sure other countries don't all use "high school". I'm not proposing or tagging anything just yet, I'd like a discussion on it first, I will tag everything if it looks like we are coming to a consensus. VegaDark 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may be an impossible task. Some are also by alma mater, eg Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Stuyvesant High School. And I'd hate to see it gone. Xiner (talk, email) 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if renamed an appropriate naming convention would be Category:Wikipedians by secondary education alma mater and have all the subcategories renamed to this format. VegaDark 20:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Alma mater, I think it'd be best to have everything by just "Alma mater", if we're keeping them. Xiner (talk, email) 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was, alma mater can refer to non-higher-education institutions, so rather than creating a new set of rules for each class of educational institutions, we should just use the existing structure. Xiner (talk, email) 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be harder to distinguish between colleges and high schools if they used the same naming convention. VegaDark 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm afraid of officially opening the gate, but if we allow some, we should allow all, and there'd be no reason to distinguish between anything. Maybe a better alternative is to delete them all, colleges or not. Keep all as "alma mater", or delete all is my vote, I guess. Xiner (talk, email) 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, we can do the usual "if it doesn't have an associated article, it gets deleted", but there are a lot of High school articles out there. I think the college alma mater categories are fine. I agree that renaming them all to Wikipedians by alma mater is better than leaving them in their current state of random naming conventions. I suppose we could do that first and then nominate for deletion later. VegaDark 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved this back to the top of the page. Closing this as "no consensus" isn't going to help, we need more comments as to if we should delete this, or if not, what the standard naming convention should be. VegaDark 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say keep them, because even if they don't collaborate on articles about the school, finding wikipedians who you may know in real life can be helpful. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the high school categories. (Presuming that they are all secondary education schools, and not trade school or college level of some kind. There was a lengthy discussion on WP:CFD about issues in school naming.) I would not oppose merging the schools of a large school system to a single category (such as the Chicago public school system). But those of springtown anystate don't seem to me to be useful for anything but socialising. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make them all "Wikipedians from"... and do the same with all college categories. In advance, "Not it."--Mike Selinker 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sibling categories edit

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 (now we just have to figure out how).--Mike Selinker 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And any other sibling categories that I might have missed or may be created in the future. These should at minimum be merged into Category:Wikipedians with siblings. I will also be fine if the consensus is to delete these. VegaDark 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though I created Category:Wikipedians with 4 siblings I think it would be wise to put them all under one category and divide that catagory up into seperate sections. If we don't we might have (extreme) 50 different categories for every different # of siblings. --Darkest Hour 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't think this leads to collaboration on Brother, for example.--Mike Selinker 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm to blame for this discussion...I think it would probably be a good idea to move these "Wikipedians with x siblings" categories into subcategories of Category:Wikipedians with siblings. Since the userboxes that created the categories are under my username, notify me of the consensus if I don't see it, so I can change the auto-categorization in the template. grapħıte_elbowβ 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, VegaDark, thanks for letting me know about this. I fully support merging. I am not sure that I technically created this category. I mean, people were already in it, but there was no non-automatically-generated text there, so the page was officially blank, and thus the links to the category at the bottoms of user pages to the category were showing up as red. I just added the text at the top of the page so the links didn't show up as non-existent. Sorry if that's unclear; if I need to explain it again, let me know on my talk page please. Again, sorry, and thanks, and I hope it gets merged. Goyston talk, contribs, play 02:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, useless cats, these should go to userboxes. BTW, where's Category:Wikipedians with 3 siblings? Causesobad → (Talk) 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Causesobad. --The Dark Side 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Don't help cooperation in any way. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all I can't really see the point of this. It has the further disadvantage of potentially including everybody. DGG 04:09, 24 February 2007 (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.

February 19 edit

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and all subpages edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as both noms were made by a troll account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Nothing useful about keeping a list of usernames for everyone to see, most which violate NPOV and privacy. There is no point in maintaining these lists, Delete. Jim Pooele 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - WP:CFD says these should be filed under Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought there was a consensus to delete all these or something similar a while back, but I can't find it. I agree that they don't really help since all indefinitely blocked users have their pages deleted eventually anyway, and the categories will become empty because of that. VegaDark 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and all subpages edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as both noms were made by a troll account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Another list we can get rid of. Again, I'm sure admin users will want to keep it, but many regular users will probably be glad to see it go, Jim Pooele 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 18 edit

Category:Eguor admins to Category:Wikipedia Eguor administrators edit

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 action; needs to be relisted with category:Rouge admins.--Mike Selinker 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be renamed to have an indication that this is a Wikipedian category, at minimum. Not sure if we even need this category to be honest, and I wouldn't be opposed to deletion if that's what consensus decides. VegaDark 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Eguor Wikipedia administrators per subcats of Category:Wikipedia administrators. Definitely do not delete because it is a special group of admins who promise a fair hearing to all. Xiner (talk, email) 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've modified the nom to reflect that naming convention, I agree that is better than admins. VegaDark 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Eguor Wikipedia administrators per Xiner. "Wikipedia" is better than "Wikipedian" PeaceNT 05:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And modified again. VegaDark 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on this at the moment, just a question: I'm wondering what the difference is between this and Category:Rouge admins? Perhaps both should be renamed? Sarah 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Egours are sincere in their statement, while the Rouges, who should be renamed in the same way, are humorists. Xiner (talk, email) 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the rename, but since I'm not the only person in the category I'd kind of like it to be kept unless it causes an actual problem. Note that there is also an element of humor here, as in the fake Sally Hemmings quote. DurovaCharge! 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/keep current name Administrators makes it look more official, SqueakBox 18:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point here. Either way though, it needs Wikipedia/Wikipedian in the title, as per all user categories. VegaDark 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I fully agree with VegaDark. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The suggested name for the renaming suggests that Eugor might be confused as an alternate language Wikipedia. Also, "Rogue admin" and "Eugor admin" are the correct terms, not the spelled out terms. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians who consider themselves Rogue admins or Category:Wikipedian adminstrators (Rogue admins) (renaming the Eugor counterpart to match). Either would be more accurate in naming, which would thus be following WP:NCCAT. - jc37 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't been willing to close this, because I think we should bring Category:Rouge admins up again rather than changing this fringe category. And I think that waits till we come up with a solution the Rouges would agree to.--Mike Selinker 04:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could change both categories to add Wikipedian in front of it, and make no other changes, and then renominate them together to determine the admin/admins/other trivial changes. VegaDark 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs to be relisted, though, as the Rouges don't know about it yet.--Mike Selinker 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could just close this as "Relist" and then relist the two together, which I should have done in the first place. VegaDark 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (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 quit World of Warcraft edit

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.--Mike Selinker 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a "not" category. Do we allow categories for people who have quit every game? Not helpful for collaboration. VegaDark 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dr. Maressa Orzack in August 8, 2006 40% of World of Warcraft players clamed to be addicted. To beat the game u gotta quit the game... LAWL!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs).

  • Can you find references/sources for such addictions? If so, then yes, otherwise, no. By the way, Warcraft and Everquest, among others, do have such references. (See the article for a start...) - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (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:TDS Original userbox edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - Combined with a Neutral response from the category creator, the category introduction of "Just for fun" sealed its fate. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Apparently users are auto-added to this category whenever they put a userbox created by User:The Dark Side on their page. No need for this, does not help encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black Speech of Mordor categories edit

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: consensus to delete 0, and merge 5 and N into the highest remaining cat; no consensus on rest. There was enough dissent against deleting the main category, and some argument over whether to merge or leave alone the rest. A few of us pushed deleting or merging the fringe categories over the line, but not the rest.--Mike Selinker 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out what lanugage these categories were when I came accross this gem that explains what these are used for. Joke categories do not help the encyclopedia. VegaDark 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not useful. Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Frankly I see a distinction between the linguistic categories (even those for non-ISO languages) and many other userbox categories. Many constructed languages have books written in them. Given that Tolkien was one of the greatest linguistic scholars of the 20th century, I think his languages are far from jokes and should be given far more leeway than "bork" for example. And yes, I can really can speak it if you care to know. IronGargoyle 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the examples of Black Speech given are wholly canonical/authentic; this may be the "neo-Black Speech" referred to in the the Black Speech article itself... See [1] and [2] and the Black Speech article itself, which point out that it's actually quite fragmentary. Uthanc 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Yes, the templates which populate these are indeed based on one of the several different 'extended' black speech/orcish vocabularies which have been developed by various sources. Yes, 'level 0' linguistic templates and categories are typically intended for announcing that a user does not know the language the wiki is written in - which isn't relevant here since there is no 'black speech' wiki. However, the fact is that there is a constructed language called 'the black speech' which has some 'official' vocabulary and has been the subject of numerous efforts at analysis and expansion. Deleting these would be inherently a temporary measure as it is guaranteed that shortly another user would come along and re-create them... not as a "joke" or to be disruptive, but because we have such templates and categories for nearly all such languages. --CBD 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Real-world and significant con-lang cats are useful. This isn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, it took me 2 minutes to figure out what these are about. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - Firstly, (what little of) this language has existed in print ever since 1954 and thus is not just a "joke"... Secondly, given that the userboxes are based on one of several different versions of extended Black Speech/Orkish (according to CBD), I think it's best to just have one, with "This user speaks the Black Speech" in English. I'd say Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin constructed languages are far more significant than this version of Black Speech, as those two were left much more developed by Tolkien himself, irregardless of later "scholars"; so I'd keep all of their userboxes, since they're likely to be more "authentic" than these. Thirdly - regarding usefulness, what's the difference between Tolkien language userboxes and Klingon, Newspeak and in fact all other constructed language userboxes? Doesn't their usefulness lie in showing the interests of users? Uthanc 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a discussion about the userboxes, it is about the categories. And those languages don't have categories associated with them, thankfully (at least that I have found). VegaDark 07:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh... Well, you get my drift, right? Uthanc 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most - As per the more recent discussion on native languages, I do not see a need for a native template for this, either (unless a verifiable resource says such a native speaker exists); but then again I also do not see the harm in including such gimmicky userboxes and categories -- which are already commonplace on userpages, even among some of the Wikipedia elders and admins. It helps lighten the mood in the sometimes hostile realm of Wikipedia editing. As for the remaining classes, apart from native, I support keeping them -- the Tolkien languages do have legitamacy: they include vocabulary, grammar, and your other typical lingual constructs and devices. It is very possible that people can pick up some simple aspects to get a 0 or 1 class; and the dedicated few whom attempt to become fluent may be able to assist the Tolkien-related articles. --Thisisbossi 12:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge all to Category:User blksp - I agree with User:Uthanc. I think we could make an exception to the use of the babel system for langagues when categorising "not-fully-constructed" languages. I think a single category (and a single userbox, for that matter, though it's outside the purview of this discussion) is enough in this case. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0, merge 5 and N. I don't agree with the "not-fully-constructed" argument, but it definitely can't have the fringe categories.--Mike Selinker 11:08, 24 February 2007 (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 with no siblings to Category:Wikipedians who are an only child edit

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 (but probably needs to wait for the other sibling categories to get changed, due to complexity of code).--Mike Selinker 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rename avoids the "not" category issue. Wouldn't be opposed to a delete either. VegaDark 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-collaborative, and a potentially all-inclusive category.--WaltCip 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WaltCip.--John Lake 01:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely not rename. Someone could be an only child but have a sibling (stepbro or sis). Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think of that. In that case, delete as not facilitating encyclopedia or community building. VegaDark 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not helpful for collaboration in editing an encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Metamagician3000 says it all. --Bduke 08:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no help. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure, its not the best category but its still one to keep though, I'm surprised there was not anyway.TellyaddictEditor review! 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You vote Keep?, it came as a big surprise to me when you voted "keep", Tellyaddict. You're often very strict with such useless stuffs, aren't you? Causesobad → (Talk) 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not facilitating the project in any way. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metamagician3000 and KillerChihuahua, and per VegaDark's comments above re this and related cats. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with this category and don't rename.--Grace E. Dougle 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just basic demographics stuff. Keep that.  Grue  10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a "not" category. The information is better categorised in reverse: Category:Wikipedians with siblings (with the specific numerical subcats). This would be like keeping the 0-level babel categories. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't like the thought of all possible family statuses becoming categories.--Mike Selinker 11:05, 24 February 2007 (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.

February 17 edit

Category:Notchav Wikipedians edit

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.--Mike Selinker 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:06, 17 February 2007 (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 edit WikiChix edit

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.--Mike Selinker 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article on WikiChix, so this does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since we historically delete categories not associated with an article, as nominator. VegaDark 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fiddle-faddle. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the creator, I'd like to go for keep because 1) it's not been publicized yet, 2) it's associated with wikichix which was specifically set up to address systemic bias within Wikipedia itself - it's a collection of WP editors. The corresponding WikiChix article is a work in progress and isn't on-line yet. It seems a little odd to target this category, given that it is only days old and that there are already some pretty bizarre usergroup categories out there that remain. It seems a shame that a group set up to counteract systemic bias within Wikipedia itself should be targeted for deletion. The group itself has already been discussed at length on mail.wikimedia.org - Alison✍ 04:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have created the category after the article was created. Keeping this justifies keeping Category:VegaDark's super fan club members, because neither have articles and are equally useful to Wikipedia until they do. If you create the article before the end of this nomination I will withdraw. Until then my arguments stand. VegaDark 09:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep without prejudice - I say to give it a chance for now. Metamagician3000 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q: How many chances can you give something? A: One too many.--WaltCip 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't we have a userbox and use "What links here" for this type of stuff? Someone may argue this indirectly helps collaboration on Wikipedia, but so does "Female Wikipedians". Xiner (talk, email) 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories are for articles. By creating a category about a nonexistent article, user category standards are violated, and pretty much any user category can be created on any non-article.--WaltCip 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when? User categories are for categorizing users, not articles. Your reasoning is erroneous. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-associated wiki. Does not facilitate writing an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that user cats have uses besides direct collaboration on a specific article. And I think knowing what other wikis that a user belongs to is helpful for collaboration, as well. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you went through the effort to create such a Wikia wiki, and it was open, and being "used", then yes, I likely would. But then, I support allowing Wikia categories, per the talk page (and Category:Wikipedians by website). Note that the name of your wiki which suggests that only you can edit it, does not mean that in truth only you can edit it. However, if it's a wiki of one person - I think at least 4 members seems to be the consensus when the category isn't part of a categorisation schema (like the album cats) - then no, I might suggest deletion. But that's not the case in this case, I think? - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The difference between this and VegaDark's hypothetical Wiki is that Ali is allowing others (at least of one gender) to edit it. And the Wiki has only been open for a couple months. If WikiChix is still an Ali-only category in three months, then sure, delete it. But let's give it a chance to thrive.--Mike Selinker 14:35, 23 February 2007 (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 enjoy Uncyclopedia to Category:Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia edit

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 both to category:Wikipedians who use Uncyclopedia. (I'm anticipating what I think is a fairly obvious result of a rename discussion.)--Mike Selinker 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category, so they should be merged. I'm not sure I like the name "Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia" but first things first. I may submit a rename in the future. VegaDark 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a subcat of the parent category doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete it. It's of our duty to clear unnecessary promiscuous stuffs which play no roles in developing the collaboration of Wiki (for which main goal is to improve the quality of content). Knowing a person enjoying or being a member of Uncyclopedia or not is worthless information, since this website is totally humor from the very beginning. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The main thing is the difference in wording. It may include Wikipedians who enjoy Uncyclopedia, but not necessarily be a user on Uncyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason each of these categories exist though, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is so the users within can contribute to to Uncyclopedia article. And since that is the purpose of each, minor differences of the literal naming convention implying different things shouldn't matter. VegaDark 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We'd have a cat for each of the many other websites that exist out there if we keep this one. Xiner (talk, email) 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about as useful as the Wikpedians who eat pizza cat - no use, opens the door to all other kinds of useless cats. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not useful for collaboration. Metamagician3000 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I can imagine it being useful for collaboration---collaboration for the benefit on Unencyclopedia, not just the article. DGG 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must be joking. There's no collaborative value on Unencyclopedia to be found other than spamming and direct violation of Wikipedia's own rules.--WaltCip 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and if no consensus to delete: Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use Uncyclopedia - per the discussion above, and consistancy of other sub-cats of Wikipedians by website. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why keep it in the first place, pray tell?--WaltCip 11:30, 23 February 2007 (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.

February 16 edit

Category:Wikipedians who have survived an attack by a crazed astronaut edit

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by another admin. Xiner (talk, email) 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created to go along with a user box here. Looks like WP:NPA to me. --EarthPerson 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Obvious joke category due to recent news event. Xiner (talk, email) 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. Metamagician3000 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Borderline speedyable. The closest guideline it would be speedyable under is as an attack page, but I can see some room to argue of how it wouldn't be. Don't think I will speedy this myself but I'll leave it here for another admin to determine if they think it is. VegaDark 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I felt the same way... couldn't quite see my way clear to speedy it myself, but if someone else wants to ... Metamagician3000 07:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PeaceNT 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 15 edit

Category:Wikipedians who will not drink Foster's beer edit

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. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both a "not" AND a food category. How did this one slip by us for over a month? Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 22:09, 15 February 2007 (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 dislike Harry Potter edit

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. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have historically deleted other "dislike" categories, this should be no different. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, who do you mean this does not facilitate collaboration? It facilitates collaboration about criticism on Harry Potter, a section which definitely needs work (criticism does not only include christian conservatives who claim it promotes witchcraft). Just because it is a mainstream and generally well-received series does not mean it has serious flaws. Colipon+(T) 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why I prefer collaboration cats, but anyway, your disliking of Harry Potter probably isn't about the character or series alone, so I'm sure you can think of a more general name for the cat. Whereas people who like the book usually like it for a specific reason. Xiner (talk, email) 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I am up for renaming the category. Colipon+(T) 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have to suggest a name to try to convince others to vote Keep. :) Xiner (talk, email) 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Try Wikipedians Critical of Harry Potter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talk • contribs)
            • Unsuitable name, not everyone who dislikes Harry Potter can be called a Harry Potter critic. Btw, this category gives no indication of the so-called collaboration about criticism, this is merely a dislike. PeaceNT 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Most people are critical of most films/books. We can't have a category for each one. Xiner (talk, email) 16:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it honestly bothers all of you to this extent then I will back down here. But leave the userbox be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talk • contribs) 2007-02-17T09:38:24
                • The userbox isn't up for discussion and thus not in any danger here. Xiner (talk, email) 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom PeaceNT 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes Harry Potter, if one cares enough to collaborate on the topic, one can be categorized as someone who is "interested" in it. Hence, this category is superfluous. If it's only a "dislike" per se that is being communicated to the outside world, then the category should be deleted just like any other "dislike" category would be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not helpful for collaboration. Metamagician3000 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaft, "NOT" violation.--WaltCip 01:53, 18 February 2007 (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 who are not interested in Uncyclopedia edit

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. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have historically deleted other "not interested in" categories, this should be no different. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:40, 15 February 2007 (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 aren't administrators edit

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. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "not" category. It does not help to categorize users by what they aren't, only by what they are. VegaDark 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think 0.3% of user accounts are admins. Xiner (talk, email) 21:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the category to go with the userbox, so it would be neat and tidy to go along with the 'Wikipedians who aren't admins and don't want to be'. I have no problem with the deletion of the category, I have no attachment to it whatsoever, but it will then leave a gap, since there is a category for the other type of 'not's (and in fact there is a category for most or all userboxes, no?). But like I said, I don't care personally. And BTW I created the 'not' userbox to appease an editor who wanted a userbox that stated his status as a non-administrator without adding an opinion about it (he had earlier edited the other userbox). Anchoress 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99.7% of Wikipedia accounts are not admins', so this category is not very useful. Most people on this page are actually against "not" categories (cf. "not" userboxes). They are two different things and I think the "not admin and don't wanna be" cat is more useful. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Higthly useful category and info box to let other users know one is not an admin, because otherwise peol;kle will think one is in some cases such as my own, SqueakBox 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All we really need is an Admin category. This is just superfluous. bibliomaniac15 01:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - superfluous. If you want people to know you're not an admin write something on your userpage, or even put a userbox there. Metamagician3000 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why would we need a category to find people who aren't admins? What use does that serve? -Amarkov moo! 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I want someone who is not an administrator, I go looking for a userpage without the category Category:Wikipedia administrators, don't I :)? Yuser31415 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the user who created this category must be a humorist. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, I was just trying to do User:Squeakbox a favour so he would leave the userbox 'not an admin and don't want to be' alone. Anchoress 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC, Anchoress. But if you keep this cat, you'll put yourself in hardship since you have to continually update every new member in user creation logs. It's a hard work, and I don't want you to lose much strength in it :). Causesobad → (Talk) 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dood, did you read my comment above? I don't care if the cat is deleted. But I don't understand what you're talking about about manually updating? Sorry, I am a total n00b v/v categories. And why are you so concerned about my wellbeing? Do we know each other? Anchoress 22:26, 21 February 2007 (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:Bullshitter Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as category has already been discussed and deleted before. VegaDark 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking similar case to this, only two users in the category and one of them looks almost exactly like the two who's user pages were deleted via MfD after Xiner nominated them. Feel free to nominate these two as well ;) VegaDark 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete since we have already discussed the issue. It isn't "recreation" of deleted content since it was created before the last UCFD on this was closed, so I didn't tag it as that, but seems pointless to go through another regular nomination. VegaDark 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Unbelievable. Their pages still stand? Xiner (talk, email) 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are different users, not the ones you nominated for MfD. I encourage you to do the same with these. VegaDark 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close per nom. PeaceNT 15:02, 15 February 2007 (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.

February 12 edit

Category:Misogynist Wikipedians edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Misogynist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:NPOV. Whereas categories such as Category:Masculist Wikipedians and Category:Feminist Wikipedians show support for justice and human rights, misogyny implies irrational hatred, targeted specifically toward a single gender. The creator of this category (the only user found in it) has stated this is a category for "Wikipedians who harbour a degree of contempt for women, for whatever reason". We have yet to see a Category:Misandrist Wikipedians! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a self-inflicted category, it's offensive and disruptive ("I hate women"), and as inflicted on others it's a personal attack ("this user hates women"). Postdlf 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not be here. It should be moved to WP:UCFD. --Bduke 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. Picaroon 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can support many things, but not hatred. Xiner (talk, email) 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hatemongering category. Doczilla 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hateful. bibliomaniac15 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it promotes hate. (Bellpepper 03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not ever.--Mike Selinker 06:19, 13 February 2007 (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 hope Richard Stallman and Creative Commons will reconcile their licenses edit

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. VegaDark 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable stance, but I don't see how it helps encyclopedia or community building to categorize people into this, a userbox seems more than enough. I hope lots of things happen, but I don't need to make a category for each of them. VegaDark 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an interesting, if irrelevant sentiment. To work toward simple and uniform licensing on Wikipedia would require relicensing of existing content. Neither Stallman nor CC has anything to do with that, as any changes they propose to their respective licenses cannot be assumed to be retroactive. We already have plenty of multi-licensing user templates and categories. —ptk✰fgs 11:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete userbox is more than enough. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Causesobad, you stole my motto. Xiner (talk, email) 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems more than enough. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant and has a title which is way too long.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created the category but I realize nominator is right. :-) Having only a userbox is fine. Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pile-on. Metamagician3000 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Specificity does not ordinarily justify a user category..--WaltCip 01:48, 18 February 2007 (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 year of joining Wikipedia edit

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 all. VegaDark 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the 3 subcategories of Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2004, Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2005, and Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2006. These are recently created categories and I don't feel they help encyclopedia or community building, but I'm willing to listen to arguments of keeping them if someone thinks they do. VegaDark 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. They achieve nothing. --Bduke 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is merely duplicating information contained in the user log, but with less precision. —ptk✰fgs 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there're thousands of users register to Wikipedia each day. It's meaningless to enumerate all of them. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot absolutely pointless. Totnesmartin 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Doczilla 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are other templates as listed by the nomnator so there is no need for this template which would be longer and take more time to load, just taking up unnecessary server space.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless category. PeaceNT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless. Metamagician3000 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So what do we do when the Y3K bug strikes?--WaltCip 01:49, 18 February 2007 (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.

February 11 edit

Category:HIV-positive Wikipedians edit

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. VegaDark 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:HIV-positive Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category only contains 1 user who's supposed to be dead (User:Buttered Bread). Really useless category. Causesobad → (Talk) 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about the cat, at first glance. And what would the media do if they catch word of this? Xiner (talk, email) 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who will join this category, except for a supposed-to-be-dead user? Causesobad → (Talk) 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a merge into Category:Wikipedians with a virus. Xiner (talk, email) 04:35, 11 February 2007 (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 oppose excessive external links edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians vigilant about external links. VegaDark 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who oppose excessive external links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this category needed? I don't think there's much debate about the external links guideline. Picaroon 04:04, 11 February 2007 (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.

February 10 edit

Category:Wikipedians Walking Mancunian Way edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted by user request. VegaDark 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what this category is for, but It seems as if it is for people who walk along A57(M) motorway, which Mancunian Way redirects to. I see no possible use for this category. VegaDark 22:19, 10 February 2007 (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 Hieroglyphs to Category:Wikipedians interested in hieroglyphs edit

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 to rename or delete, but I am going to move it to Category:Wikipedians who use hieroglyphs per proper capitalization. VegaDark 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better conveys that this is supposed to be used for collaboration, as per other "interested in" categories. At minimum needs proper capitalization. VegaDark 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want it renamed, too, but the userbox doesn't say interest. Xiner (talk, email) 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we can leave that for the people with the userbox to sort out. Just because the creator made the userbox say one thing doesn't mean that the category is now immune to being changed. VegaDark 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the question is then, why not just delete it? People who use the userbox aren't necessarily interested in the topic, and people who are can recreate it easily. I'm surprised, anyhow, although I probably shouldn't be, that no one seems to be using it. Xiner (talk, email) 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category seems like something someone made up one day. Xiner (talk, email) 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was meant for collaboration on articles and topics related to heiroglyphs. No one's used it because I haven't made the UBX public much yet (by public, i mean I havent put it in a gllary yet or anything.)People do use hieroglyphs. Not necessarily Egyptian ones, or organized ones at all, but they understand the heiroglyphic system and migh use the graphemes for other purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whytecypress (talk • contribs).
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 HeavenGames edit

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. VegaDark 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeavenGames, resulting in delete. No article means it cannot facilitate collaboration, so it should be deleted. VegaDark 20:54, 10 February 2007 (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 oppose quackery edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in alternative medicine issues. VegaDark 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in quackery topics. Xiner (talk, email) 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed by Xiner. Quackery is an interesting topic, and while we're unlikely to find supporters of quackery, it is the interest that is useful to this project, not the personal opinions held by category members. —ptk✰fgs 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rename is fine with me. VegaDark 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment − You could argue that since these users are opposed to quackery, it is implied that they are interested in quackery (you might call it a negative interest). But interest has more of a positive connotation, and I imagine most of these users would oppose being categorized as "interested in quackery". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt. suggestion How about "quackery issues"? Xiner (talk, email) 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' to "Wikipedians interested in alternative medicine issues" since previous CfD established that quackery was a problematiclly controversial term. JoshuaZ 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per JoshuaZ. A very good suggestion. --Bduke 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per JoshuaZ. In that form it would be potentially useful. Metamagician3000 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose to either rename suggestion and Delete. Both renames are extremely misleading. Even saying someone is interested in alternative medicine issues might be taken by some as an endorsement of alternative medicine on the part of the user (alternative medicine being considered quackery in many circles). Delete per controvercial nature of term "quackery". IronGargoyle 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say one is interested in alternative medicine issues does not mean they approve of it. If someone interprets it that way that is their problem. VegaDark 21:20, 20 February 2007 (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 in the Rogue Nation edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in breweries. This fits better than "brewing" because it is more in the spirit of the original category. VegaDark 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food category in disguise. We have historically deleted food categories so I don't see why this should be any different. VegaDark 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you sure the Rogue Nation isn't about politics? Xiner (talk, email) 15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Keep based on the previous consensus in the archives.--WaltCip 11:45, 14 February 2007 (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 create their own userboxes to Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (I should have done this then).--Mike Selinker 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete this earlier, but nobody argued that the current name should be kept, hence I think this should be speedy renamed. I think we can all agree that this is at least a better name. VegaDark 21:49, 10 February 2007 (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.

February 9 edit

Category:Drug-free Wikipedians edit

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. We have Category:Wikipedians who oppose drugs for the political stance, and Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs for collaboration. Consensus looks to show that this category is not needed. VegaDark 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed these as no consensus, but I'm listing this one again. I think it should either be deleted as a rare intersection of the "not" and "food" categories, or, failing that, merged into the new category:Wikipedians interested in drugs. I sense many people would defect from the category if this merge occurred, so I favor deleting it. Since I don't want to fork the discussion, I'd like to wait on category: Wikipedians who oppose drugs for now.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - There are various categories where people proclaim support or oppostion of various things. Objecting to drug use for themselves is legal in most parts of the world when the opposition is not. Not to mention that supposed connection with food is tenous at best - Skysmith 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Technically there should be a list with about every single user on here (with respect), also people who are in this category maybe using wikipedia as a place for irrelevant personal info about themselves.TellyaddictEditor review! 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteOpposition to objections of drug use is not illegal in most places. This category is synonymous with a cat of Wikipedians who do not take drugs, a classic not usercat. And should people who use tobacco or alcohol take themselves out of the cat? Xiner (talk, email) 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since "drug free" is a somewhat-organized movement related to straight edge, there is substantial agreement on what it constitutes. It is probable that few alcohol-drinking Wikipedians have added themselves to this category. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are a topic of much debate within this group and several in this category are probably smokers. — coelacan talk — 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a personal bias against people declaring that they are free of something, because oftentimes the truth isn't so simple. Xiner (talk, email) 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As with everything else on Wikipedia, we're not talking about truth but verifiability, and we can verify quite easily that these people are declaring their stance as such. Whether they're correct to choose that, or pure of intention, or strict in their definition, or anything else, is irrelevent here. — coelacan talk — 03:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "not" category. Category:Wikipedians who oppose drugs can be for anyone who is politically against drugs. (which I will support a rename of in a future nom)VegaDark 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, this "not" category stuff is a red herring and a convenient deletionist excuse. All categories are both "not" categories and "not not" categories, as every boundary can be described from either the outside or the inside. I believe that entire line of argument is really misleading. Anyway, this category is useful for collaboration on War on Drugs, Arguments for and against drug prohibition, Prohibition (drugs), Hardline (syncretic movement), Straight edge, Christian Science, Just Say No, stop, drop and roll (okay not that one), teetotalism, temperance movement, and Prohibition, among others. The hypothetical proposal to merge with Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs is specious, since they're not interested in drugs, they're interested in living their lives in such a way as to promote clearness of mind. It's an active stance. That's why there's heaps of these sorts of articles, all of which can benefit from collaboration between these Wikipedians. — coelacan talk — 00:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support that argument if we had an article titled Drug-free, but we don't. Apparently a "drug-free" lifestyle, as worded, is not notable enough for an article. Using that logic one could create Category:Banana-free Wikipedians and say it can be used to collaborate on Banana, Banana chips, Pisang goreng, Banana paper, Banana messenger, Plantain, etc., etc. And because someone says it is a lifestyle, we should believe him. If you believe that drug-free is a lifestyle find sources and create an article. Then I would support this being kept. VegaDark 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, once again, I ask you to make an effort not to use "deletionist" as a pejorative term. The removal of unhelpful user categories is constructive and helps to improve the encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User categories are only useful if they define users by what they are, not what they are not. The sole possibility of this categorization facilitating collaboration on the encyclopedia is if users are merged into Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs. A claim that the "drug-free" banner trumps the interest in drug issues here is a tacit assertion that this is, in fact, a category organized to promote a particular point of view. A Wikipedian is either interested in editing articles on drugs, or he is not. In the former case a user category will be helpful. In the latter case, it will not. —ptk✰fgs 11:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark. A merge is inappropriate since there's no certainty that drug-free editors are interested in drugs. Regarding coelacan's point, Category:Straight edge Wikipedians and similar categories already exist and are much more specific. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - takes a divisive political stance. Not helpful to the encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 01:46, 17 February 2007 (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 in the American Telecommuting Association edit

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 due to only one person supporting keeping and past precedent of deleting categories without associated articles VegaDark 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article for American Telecommuting Association, so this category cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a rather new organization. Would like an article first. Xiner (talk, email) 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because there is no article, it does not neccessarily mean that there should be nothing else on wikipedia about the subject. TellyaddictEditor review! 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category isn't about telecommuters, but people who belong to a possibly non-notable organization. It can look like spam to some. Xiner (talk, email) 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article for this was speedy deleted as being not notable if you look at the page logs (tagged by me). VegaDark 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, screams "SPAM! SPAM! SPAM!" —ptk✰fgs 11:28, 12 February 2007 (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 live in Tinton Falls edit

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. VegaDark 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Tinton Falls per convention. Changing my vote to Delete per creator. Xiner (talk, email) 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Weren't we going to try and get all these to "Wikipedians from", not "Wikipedians in" (the same way we do it in mainspace, i.e. Category:People from Oregon)? VegaDark 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I guess I must've misunderstood the new convention. I thought the "Wikipedians from" cats are for people who were raised up there, but I guess not? I guess that explains the dearth of an umbrella "in" group then. Xiner (talk, email) 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because I want it doesn't mean we've discussed it. The "born in" categories should close as "from," but we haven't tagged any of the "in" categories and solicited opinions on that. As I said, it's a huge task.--Mike Selinker 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what I thought. Thanks. I do think we need the two types -- one for where you come from and one about where you are now. Xiner (talk, email) 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, either way, a rename per nom is better than leaving it as is, we can discuss moving the "in" categories later. VegaDark 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Move the to category name reccommended by Xiner.TellyaddictEditor review! 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. There is only one user in the category and the place only has a population of 15,000. What use is it? At best the smallest unit for these in the US should be States, in this case New Jersey. --Bduke 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many categories like this so if we do decide to delete, it should probably be in a group nom. VegaDark 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created it to find out if there were any TF Wikipedians, so that we could improve our borough's article and related things. But since I evidently am the only TF Wikipedian, it no longer has any value.--Whytecypress 23:25, 16 February 2007 (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.

February 7 edit

Category:Canadian Wikipedians born in Hong Kong edit

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 to Category:Wikipedians from Hong Kong. VegaDark 00:03, 18 February 2007 (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.

Chinese user categories, Part 2 edit

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 Taiwan, no consensus for the other two. VegaDark 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two merges are pretty straightforward, and reflect reality. The only possibly contentious nomination is Category:Wikipedians in China, which I think should be deleted because both states claim to be the China, and giving it to either would just create a whole controversy that's been avoided on their respective Wikipedia article by adopting the official names. Its discussion page could be preserved so people will be less tempted to recreate it. Xiner (talk, email) 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Delete per nom. They are the correct names of the respective countries. bibliomaniac15 00:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that we should shy away from the Taiwan debate, especially since it's been in the news so recently. The very name of the country in question is actually a political issue in this case. So for now, I suggest withdrawing that part of the nomination.
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians in Mainland China into Category:Wikipedians in the People's Republic of China and Delete Category:Wikipedians in China both per nom. - jc37 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Taiwan is always in the news, especially for people who care about it. Which recent news item are you referring to? Right now everyone in Taiwan has to put two categories on their user page, which is something no one else has to do. Xiner (talk, email) 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you just put a see also at the top of both categories, and allow the Wikipedians in question to place themselves in whichever category they prefer. An extra link click is not going to prevent collaboration in this case. - jc37 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry, but I just am not sure who would be satisfied with that solution, which is quite similar to the current situation. Now, you may ask, the Taiwan cat is already a subcat of RoC cat, so what's the problem? Well, PRC refers to the island solely as Taiwan, so most Taiwanese feel the need to say that they're in RoC as well as Taiwan. Hence the need for two user cats right now. The population in Taiwan makes up 99.63% of that of RoC -- why are we making the whole country jump through two hoops? Xiner (talk, email) 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if we're trying to satisfy those who want to go out of their way to make a statement about Taiwan being RoC, well, usercats are not the place to do it. Xiner (talk, email) 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Wikipedians in Mainland China into Category:Wikipedians in the People's Republic of China and Delete Category:Wikipedians in China both per nom. As for Category:Wikipedians in Taiwan, I don't know as much as I'd like about the political situation so I won't comment about that aspect but I will say that we have categories such as Category:Wikipedians in Albany, New York and Category:Wikipedians in Prince Edward Island, so I don't see why Wikipedians in Taiwan can't continue to exist as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians in the People's Republic of China, as users can identify as being on the island. VegaDark 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better analogy would be Ireland, and usercats of "Wikipedians in Ireland" and "Wikipedians in the Republic of Ireland". Xiner (talk, email) 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to abstain, I no longer feel I know enough about this to know I am making the right choice. I'll have to put read up about China and all its territorial controversies on my to-do list. VegaDark 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Mainland China is not the same as the PRC. The PRC includes both Hong Kong and Macau, while Mainland China does not. Also, a Wikipedian can conceivably be both a "Wikipedians in China" and "Wikipedian in the PRC". The issue with "Taiwan", "ROC", and "China" is basically a matter of politics. I suggest we just leave these alone and let Wikipedians self-categorise themselves as they see fit. Especially if "Wikipedians in China" is deleted, it will probably just be recreated again, as I can imagine many people would rather say they are "in China" than "in the PRC". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hong Kong and Macau users already have their own user cats; they don't have to be stuck with PRC. I've checked the China cat and its members are either in mainland proper or don't actually belong in the cat, so I don't think there's a problem deleting it. Xiner (talk, email) 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose exactly per Hong Qi Gong. We should not take away the ability for Wikipedians to categorize themselves in both Category:Wikipedians in Taiwan and Category:Wikipedians in China, for instance. To deny this possibility would certainly be POV. — coelacan talk — 08:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Taiwan -> RoC - too controversial. As Taiwan, it is making no statement, but as RoC it's claiming to be the descendent of 1949. No opinion on the other two - most proposed options and even the status quo have their pros and cons. Orderinchaos78 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per other oppose votes.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 01:05, 14 February 2007 (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.

February 6 edit

Category:Chinese Wikipedians overseas edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Overseas Chinese Wikipedians. VegaDark 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt the impossible and try to straighten out the overpopulated and convoluted China-related user categories. This is the first nomination. It should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from China. Can it be speedied? Xiner (talk, email) 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. All "Wikipedians in location" categories need to be renamed to this format.VegaDark 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know... The category name also would tend to show that the Wikipedian in question would also know about going "overseas", and a host of other related things, besides being from China. However, I'd like more discussion on this one. - jc37 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Overseas is a Chinese term for abroad. Traditionally Chinese people have gone far away when they left the country -- America, UK, Australia -- but now they're going to closer places too, like Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, so this cat name isn't even accurate. And if we really mean "overseas", then it'd be gross overcategorization. As for the "host of other related things", I didn't think there is. Could you clarify? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Overseas Chinese Wikipedians - It looks like this category was made for Overseas Chinese editors. Not all Overseas Chinese are from China, many are just ethnic Han Chinese born and raised outside of the Greater China Area. This is not a category of the type "Wikipedians in location", it is more an ethnicity-based Wikipedian category. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd agree to rename this cat to Category:Overseas Chinese Wikipedians. When this discussion closes - I'd have withdrawn it if QiGong's idea weren't better than mine - I'll nominate it to be merged into Category:Chinese Wikipedians. Xiner (talk, email) 03:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Hong Qi Gong. Orderinchaos78 09:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Hong Qi Gong. "Overseas Chinese" is quite distinctly different from "from China" conceptually. In some cases it might be as much as "Australian" or "American" versus "British". --Sumple (Talk) 01:15, 10 February 2007 (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.

February 4 edit

Wikipedians by alma mater edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. No good reason given not to rename. VegaDark 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency—see the categories at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States. --zenohockey 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename per nom VegaDark 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDo not rename - Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, are you saying the cats shouldn't be renamed? If so, how come? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • His edit summary was "no delete" so it looks as if he thought these were up for deletion rather than renaming. VegaDark 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please accept my apologies...I'm sort of falling asleep here :) I support keeping the present name simply because I don't think a rename would benefit the encyclopedia in any way - is that not the objective of any discussion: whether implementing the action in question will benefit Wikipedia? Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Standardized naming conventions benefit the encyclopedia, no?VegaDark 00:53, 9 February 2007 (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.

Miscellaneous delete nominations edit

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 all but the last one, which will be merged. VegaDark 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All seem pretty spurious to me. If there’s any objection, though, I can break one or more of these out to a separate nomination.--Mike Selinker 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the last one, Delete the rest, per my comments above. - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the last one; delete the rest per above. Metamagician3000 01:59, 17 February 2007 (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.

Wikipedians interested in playing sports edit

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 was leaning toward rename but there were good points made to not rename some of these. In the future I recommend nominating these either individually for renaming, or if nominating for deletion the entire lot of categories in Wikipedians by sport. VegaDark 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these would match their counterparts under category:Sportspeople by sport.--Mike Selinker 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all, possibly speedy rename since this seems uncontroversial. VegaDark 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or rename if that's the consensus. I just realized that the most popular sport in the world doesn't have a similar category. I won't create one because it doesn't really help collaboration. Xiner (talk, email) 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these go, everything else in Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports should go. Personally, I think the best long-term solution would be to rename everything in the category to Wikipedians interested in collaborating on (sport) articles/topics (i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on golf articles or Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on golf topics). I'm still undecided if I like articles or topics better. Topics would be a little more inclusive since it could cover portals, lists, disambig pages, and stuff instead of just articles, but the naming seems a little more awkward than if it said "articles". Actually, now that I write this I'm liking "topics" a little better. The parent category would then need to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on sports topics. But, if no consensus for this, the renames above are better than doing noting. VegaDark 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about Category:Wikipedians interested in sports topics? Let's agree on something before others start to vote. :) Xiner (talk, email) 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Category:Wikipedians who collaborate on sports topics would be even better. Xiner (talk, email) 05:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I think of the "ideal use" of categories under this naming system, I think it will be essentially like a wikiproject where people can look at all the other users in the category, and message them asking if they want to actively collaborate on a particular article, portal, or whatnot. So when coming up with a name I am trying to think of something that would best convey this system. When a category says "interested in collaborating" I think it more conveys this than "who collaborates on", I'm not entirely sure why, it just seems a little more inviting for someone to join it. I don't know, I may change my mind and determine that "who collaborate on" is indeed a better naming system, I still need to put a little bit more thought into this. I'm hoping this will be the new standard naming system that a ton of the user categories are going to have to go through, and I want to get the naming system perfect the first time so we don't have to go back and change a bunch if we decide to change it later. VegaDark 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For instance, someone may look at the category and go "I'd like to collaborate on something, but the category title of "Who collaborate on" implies that people in the category are currently or have already collaborated on this subject, and since I haven't already, I shouldn't join this". Whereas "Wikipedians interested in" wouldn't have this issue. Of course, I doubt many would take the category title that literally, but I still think "interested in" is worth doing to remove even the slight possibility of someone not wanting to join a category for this reason. VegaDark 06:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point. After all, people who collaborate on something may join a WikiProject. I'm just worried about the number of words needed for simple cases. I'll have to think about this too. Xiner (talk, email) 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about Category:Wikipedians who contribute to sports topics? Xiner (talk, email) 01:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I strongly disagree with the idea that the name of a category must indicate collaboration directly. I don't see any reason why Category:Wikipedians who play x (where "x" is equal to some sport) cannot be allowed to exist as named, in the same way that we have computer and video game players' categories. - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. I wouldn't get too literal here, or we have to rename EVERY category. That's just not worth it. I think we should either rename these to match the mainspace categories, or rename all the rest of the sports playing category to match the game categories as "Wikipedians who play X". Either is fine.--Mike Selinker 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming - Though each for different reasons (including my comments above). For example, I think that there is a difference between a roller skater, and someone who participates in Roller Derby. (Exception:Per current guidelines, rowers can be speedied.) - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of userboxes is distasteful to some, because they think Wikipedia is for encyclopedic work only. While I do not hold such a strong view, I do think that at the end of the day, WP:NOT a social site, etc. User categories such as these serve no purpose beyond advertising a person's personal likes/dislikes. I'm opne to changing my mind, of course. Xiner (talk, email) 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I believe I understand your concerns, I think the line being drawn is subjective, and we should be wary of too forcefully pushing Wikipedian categories over that line. I've personally been a proponent of collaborative uses for these categories. However, that's not their only use. And btw, while Wikipedia is assuredly not a social networking site, Wikipedia also assuredly has a community of Wikipedians. And supporting that community of encyclopedists does support the encyclopedia. And finally (smile), does anyone know a way to make the notice at the top of this page about this page not discussing userboxes sparkle in multicolours, in flashing lights? : ) - jc37 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The userspace is one thing, the category space is another. I don't think we should be using categories to classify people by likes, dislikes, or other such things that don't help build an encyclopedia, or at least help the community. I don't think "Wikipedians who play x" does either, So yes, I am advocating renaming almost every single user category (In the long run, that is...obviously I can see there will not be a consensus for this anytime soon so I'll stick to trying to make categories "better" rather than "perfect"). VegaDark 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roller derby is very, very different from roller skating. Renaming it as such would not be terribly accurate. Maybe Wikipedian roller derby players? Although, that would sound incredibly awkward to anybody who actually does play roller derby. Either way, I've found these kind of categories useful to find specific people to run edits by, in much the same way that any of the geographical or talent categories are useful. --Marumari 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as serving no purpose for collaboration on an encyclopedia. If you wish to contribute in a field in which you are involved or interested, join or start a Wikipedia Project. Categories are the New Userbox - how to list a lot of people's random interests and affiliations, facilitating a club mentality. If you want to mention your interests and affiliations on your userpage, do so - but there is no useful purpose to these sports categories, any more than there is to food categories. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 19 February 2007 (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.

CVU edit

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 all into Category:Wikipedians in the Counter Vandalism Unit. I could use some help moving all the members, since there are a lot. VegaDark 05:20, 19 February 2007 (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 on Eincyclopedia to Category:Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia edit

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. VegaDark 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Eincyclopedia is, but it redirects to Uncyclopedia so we should probably do the same and merge the two. VegaDark 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. VegaDark 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally a good category, although it's small it's still good.Tellyaddict 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Eincyclopedia is the Hebrew version of Uncyclopedia. Seems mergeable to me, though I have no strong opinion.--Mike Selinker 13:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not enough for a subcategory. Xiner (talk, email) 15:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If the subcategory doesn't have an article, it shouldn't exist.--WaltCip 12:14, 6 February 2007 (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 Lyriki edit

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. VegaDark 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyriki, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 09:12, 4 February 2007 (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 Fur Affinity edit

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. VegaDark 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Affinity, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If theres already a similar category theres no need for another one.Tellyaddict 12:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Xiner (talk, email) 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, and because many user categories are not designed for collaboration (see the very broad spectrum of user templates (and review their subsequent user categories) that serve no real purpose at Category:Grammar user templates). As well, Tellyaddict, there is no such similar category, unless one counts the very, very broad-spectrum user category of Category:Furry Wikipedians. Blast 04,02,07 1644 (UTC -5)
  • Delete per nom-from K37 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:54, 17 February 2007 (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 FAQ Farm edit

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. VegaDark 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article on FAQ Farm, so this category does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 08:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userbox would be sufficient. Xiner (talk, email) 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to narrow, as above a userbox would cover it fine. ~ Arjun 19:23, 7 February 2007 (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 BigFooty edit

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. VegaDark 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigFooty, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:55, 4 February 2007 (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 the Chaos Chambers edit

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. VegaDark 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Chambers, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:38, 4 February 2007 (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.

Empty categories edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Unless we have evidence of vandalism, an empty category can be deleted without discussion.--Mike Selinker 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All empty. I tagged them all as speedy but they were all declined by the reviewing admin saying "take them to CFD", apparently due to concerns of the possibility someone removed pages from all of these categories with the intent of getting these categories deleted. I see no merit to this claim, but here I am anyway. As I still feel these qualify as speedy deletions, I am listing them here. Speedy delete all as nominator. VegaDark 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Delete all if vandalism is not involved (how'd we check that anyway?). Xiner (talk, email) 01:53, 4 February 2007 (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 believe West Virginia is in the Southern United States edit

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 and salt.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation. See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South. Please note message on the talk page first.--Mike Selinker 20:18, 4 February 2007 (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.

February 3 edit

Political compass categories edit

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 all. I didn't want to have to close this since it was contested and I was involved, but it looks like there is a clear majority of people who think it should be deleted, and nobody else wants to close it. VegaDark 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Economic Neutral Wikipedians, Category:Economic Left Wikipedians, Category:Economic Right Wikipedians, Category:Social Authoritarian Wikipedians, Category:Social Libertarian Wikipedians, and Category:Social Neutral Wikipedians already. All these other ones are just combinations of these and is unhelpful overcategorization. VegaDark 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Upmerging would just cause an unnecessary mess.--WaltCip 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Unnecessary intersections. Xiner (talk, email) 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment - Before closing this CfD, please take the following into account: As the creator of the categories, let me explain that their original purpose was to service the Political Compass Userbox. As the Political Compass test defines your "position" by using both criteria (for example, mine reads: According to the Political Compass this user is: Economic Left (-9.25) and Social Libertarian (-5.69) ), it would be a bit aggravating not to have these combined categories for standings purposes. Otherwise, one would have to sort through each broader category and compare it to every other broader category to see where fellow Wikipedians lie. In short: They serve a useful purpose and are not unhelpful overcategorization. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 16:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: - The userbox automatically categorizes the user depending on their input, and as such upmerging wouldn't be a problem. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: - Excuse the repeated postings, but I realize that I might not have made my self unambiguously clear. The two criteria are coordinates on the Political Compass test. Together they determine what political quadrant someone lies within, which is more useful information than the broader categories on their own (which are merely one dimensional). Before closing this CfD or voting further, I strongly recommend reading through the Political Compass article, as I believe that this CfD was started in ignorance of how the test and categories work. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can't the userbox include two categories instead of one intersecting cat? Xiner (talk, email) 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant enough for it's own category.Tellyaddict 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was fully aware of "how this works" prior to the nom. I did not make this nomination in ignorance. We don't have an article on Economic Neutral and Social Neutral, do we? Thus, categorizing people like this does not facilitate collaboration. Like Xiner said, we can include the two categories, we don't need these additional ones. VegaDark 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it seems that any logic you need could be stuffed inside the template rather than depending on the existence of templates. Right? - grubber 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the political compass works on two axes this actually seems a bit random to me. It would make more sense to delete all the political compass categories and I would not necessarily oppose doing so.--T. Anthony 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these unnecessary and confusing intersection categories per above. Doczilla 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it facilitates finding a user who fits into both Economic X and Social Y: rather than having to manually search through Economic X and through Social Y we can look through Economic X and Social Y. If we only want to find an Economic X or a Social Y, then we can search through those alone. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But We don't have an article on Economic X and Social Y, meaning it wouldn't have any additional use to be able to find editors with both of these characteristics. Using that reasoning I could say we should create Category:Wikipedians interested in poetry and military history since I can find someone interested in both of those easier, even though we obviously don't have an article titled Poetry and Military history. Do you see what I am saying? VegaDark 09:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only use of these intersection categories are with userboxes that already include the individual cats. It's pure duplication. Xiner (talk, email) 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most unhelpful way of categorising ourselves for the purpose of working on an encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 01:50, 17 February 2007 (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.

February 2 edit

Category:Wikipedian mathematicians/math-0 edit

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.--Mike Selinker 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox that populates this category states This user does not understand mathematics, or does not want to do math. - Very definition of a "not" category, does not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia building in any way. VegaDark 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want one for every subject. Xiner (talk, email) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I think the second half of the criteria should be removed. Mathematics is a language, and unless we intend to remove all the other zero-level language cats, we should retain this one. - jc37 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I do intend on nominating all the 0-level language categories, except for the English one. The English one is the only useful one for for the english version of Wikipedia, since that is the only language that is expected for people to know, it is helpful to know if someone doesn't speak English. I was going through these and there are many language categories that don't even have the 0-level, so I don't suspect it will be nearly as many as there are languages. VegaDark 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant to wikipedia.Tellyaddict 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned above, a zero-level rating in anything but English conveys esseentially no useful information. The lack of a userbox at level 1 or higher is, by default, an indication of a zero-level understanding, except for English. (It's a default enough in the sense that there isn't any point in querying users, say, with no math userbox, to determine if by chance they do have math knowledge). (Consider the user who fills his/her userpage with userboxes showing zero-level knowledge of, say, 100+ foreign languages - totally useless.) -- John Broughton (☎☎) 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular one, but I have to disagree with John Broughton and VegaDark and oppose deletion for any languages where you could live in a country, but not understand the language (as in my case for Japanese, see my user page). In that case, that IS useful information. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, per Vega, I would very much like to see those 0-level categories bite the dust.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: The suggestion for deletion is that this zero-level category is like all other zero-level language categories on this, the english wikipedia, and as such, we should only keep the english zero-level category (and none of the other zero-level language categories) because only it (the en zero-level category) could be seen as useful here? By that premise, how could we possibly say that having a zero-level in mathematics would not be useful similarly, and for similar reasons? - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the only thing that is presumed known by all users on en.wikipedia is that they know English, so when we leave messages on their talk page we know they will be able to understand them. It doesn't help to categorize people who don't know how do to math, if for some reason we need to know that they will be able to communicate that, unlike with not being able to speak English. I can possibly see creating a category titled Category:Wikipedians who don't understand the native language of the country they reside in to satisfy Cjewell's point, but we don't need one for each individual language. And that would be under the assumption that we are all automatically assuming that since he lives in Japan he knows Japanese, which I'm not so sure is the case. VegaDark 21:35, 6 February 2007 (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.

"Born in" categories edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all VegaDark 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia to Category:Wikipedians from Czechoslovakia
Category:Wikipedians born in Glasgow to Category:Wikipedians from Glasgow
Category:Wikipedians born in Iowa to Category:Wikipedians from Iowa
Category:Wikipedians born in Texas to Category:Wikipedians from Texas

These are the only "Wikipedians born in location" categories and there are a lot more "Wikipedians from" categories, we need a standard naming convention for these. VegaDark 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all as nominator. VegaDark 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. This was a (bad) compromise because the Texans went ballistic when we tried to streamline everything last time (late August/early September--can't find the nomination). I would like every category in this format ("Wikipedians in", "Wikipedians born in", etc.) to be relabeled "Wikipedians from" so we don't have to care at what point in a person's life they claim residence in a place. But that's a lot of work.--Mike Selinker 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw those and I figured it would be best to narrow down the 3 groups to only 2 groups before we undertake that issue, but I agree with that for the long run. Baby steps Mike, baby steps... VegaDark 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, dude, back then we were trying to fight to keep the category named "Wikipedians from Texas"! That's what the category was originally called. So if you want to change "born in" back to "from", hey, you won't hear any arguments from any of us. We were mainly concerned about the concept of changing "from" to "in", which is a whole other kettle of fish. "From" implies that one was either born in or raised in [x], where [x] == a specific location. "In" just means that one happens to reside in [x], which does not sit well at all with those of us who are native Texans. So thumbs up to VegaDark for getting the category back to the name we were all happy with. (Krushsister 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Whoops. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I guess I tried to blot that out. :^) Anyway, let's put it back and see where it leads us.--Mike Selinker 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (laughs) I guess we sorta did a number on you back then, didn't we?  ;) But you just can't keep a native Texan down! Everything's bigger down here, including our personalities! We can't help it, it's a survival thing. Anyway, mea culpa once more and a reiteration of my approval for this category renaming. (Krushsister 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. - Not so certain about "in" and "from", though. jc37 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per (new) convention. Xiner (talk, email) 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, anyone going to do anything about these? I r not adminbeing, so if someone could do the rename/merge thingamabob, that would rule. Oh yeah, that would be a (much-delayed) vote on my part to rename all, speaking as a native Texan who has absolutely NO problem at all with the "from" distinction. (Krushsister 05:17, 17 February 2007 (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.

February 1 edit

Category:Wikipedians who display their number of edits edit

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.--Mike Selinker 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it is helpful to know who displays their edit count or not. Note that this is different from Category:Wikipedians by number of edits. VegaDark 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a usefull category to assist the project. --Bduke 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unuseful category Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not good enough for a category, not relevant.Tellyaddict 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As redundant a category can get.--WaltCip 14:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto. - grubber 00:57, 4 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/February_2007&oldid=1088533444"