Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | User‎ | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2007)
< October 2007 December 2007 >

November 30 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight 0001 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Rousse university edit

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Rousse university to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Rousse University
Speedy rename to fix capitalisation of "Rousse University". – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Brasil edit

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Brasil to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Brazil
Speedy rename to match the spelling of the article Brazil. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: GroepT edit

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: GroepT to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T
Speedy rename to match the main article: Groep T. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wollongong University edit

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wollongong University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Wollongong
Speedy rename to match the main article and the official name of the university: University of Wollongong. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Melbourne High School (Victoria) 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 11:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Melbourne High School (Victoria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is ample precedent to get rid of categories like this one. Lankiveil 14:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very Strong keep per The Friends' School argument below. JRG 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The Friends' School, Hobart 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 11:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The Friends' School, Hobart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: In theory, this one has a little more merit for collaboration considering this school's unique status. If the members of this user category can come up with a good reason why they should be an exception, I think it would be worth listening to. (Was a notice put on the creator's talk page?) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at the time of nomination, but I've gone ahead and notified him (see here). – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of interest, what exactly is the "unique status" of this school? -- Chuq (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      From The Friends' School, Hobart (I have no first-hand knowledge):
      "Founded in 1887 by Quakers, the school currently caters for approximately 1500 students (2007), making it the largest Quaker-affiliated school in the world. It is also the only quaker school in the southern hemisphere."
      Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the nature of the school and its place in Tasmanian society, this is a useful and enecyclopaedic category. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC) I misread this name, this is a Wikipedian category, not a subject category. Disregard my !vote - I am neutral. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this category is not doing any harm on Wikipedia; and could provide editors with knowledge of special sources and information about the school, or to resolve potential editing conflicts over content. The school's unique status should add some weight to keeping this article as well. JRG 12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The logical hub for collaboration is the talk page of the relevant article, so that would be the place to seek "special sources and information" (incidentally, "special ... information" would most likely be unverifiable or original research). Also, what does "resolv[ing] potential editing conflicts" have anything to do with the category? To resolve a content dispute, you'd need someone with dispute resolution experience or talent; the positions of people who attended the school should not be given more weight simply due to the fact of their attendance. More generally, your argument does not address why this category should constitute an exception to the deletion of all other high school alma mater user categories (see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 29 edit

Category:RMIT students 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. After Midnight 0001 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RMIT students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: RMIT University (title of the main article) or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (official name of the school). – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lankiveil 14:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename to full name (not acronym). —ScouterSig 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Oxford Falls Grammar School 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oxford Falls Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although I can imagine exceptions to the rule that high schools/grammar schools/elementary schools shouldn't have user categories, this isn't one of those. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per precedent. Lankiveil 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. —ScouterSig 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Codgers' League 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers. After Midnight 0001 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Codgers' League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As this is a user category, it should include either "Wikipedian" or "User" in the title, so as to avoid confusion with alumni categories for biographical articles (see e.g. Category:People by school in England). Adding either one is likely to take away from the charm of the category's name, but... However, I think deletion is the more appropriate action in this case, as this category is little more than a userpage notice, and grouping editors on this basis does not foster collaboration. In a way, it's a less-negative version of the deleted Category:Wikipedian WikiCurmudgeons. Note that the category currently contains only one actual user; the other two talk pages were placed there when the creator extended invitations to those editors. An alternative to deletion is to use the category description to create Wikipedia:Old Codger's League (similar to Wikipedia:Knights of NPOV and other such pages).
Though I'd be interested in what the members might suggest. I'm not opposed to the creation of a Wikipediaspace page as well. - jc37 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between this and Category:Rouge admins, in that the latter reflects an established in-joke. The concept of "Old Codger's League" lacks the popularity of "Rouge admin", and that's why I suggested creating Wikipedia:Old Codger's League ... to see whether the term has appeal. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It (somewhat) has to do with how admins are at times treated. Personally I think it probably falls under the "you had/have to be there". - jc37 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in response to BF) - So essentially: "Listify" to Wikipedia:Old Codger's League, with no prejudice for recreation if it expands/develops? I wouldn't oppose that. - jc37 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that have to do with their choice of make-up? (I'm referring to the reversal of the u and g, which this essay not only repeats consistently, but even links to another essay that does the same. I really am curious if this is deliberate.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Re: Ben Hocking) It has its origins in vandals' propensity to misspell the word "rogue" (as in: "your a rouge admin and when i tell jimbo, HE'L LOPP OFF YOURE HEAD!!!"). At least that's the story ... it may all be disinformation spread to perpetuate the oppression of [insert your favourite group] by [insert your least favourite group]. :) – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had read that a little more carefully (read: for comprehension instead of just looking at the pretty words), I would have picked that up myself. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! I'm an actual user too :) And intentional member of the above. By all means, rename it to be more grammatical or have Wikipedia in the title or whatnot (I think Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers is the best) but yes, this is very much like Rouge admins, and came out of an IRL discussion at Wikimania. It's a nascent but viable group of people who have been participating in Wikipedia for a while. -- phoebe/(talk) 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of the phrase's origins. In light of this, I am fine with either renaming (I have no preference for any particular title) or listifying to the project namespace. I've stricken the parts of my nomination statement that are no longer relevant. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • heh. NP. I added a ref. -- phoebe/(talk) 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, real user here too.  :) And yep, there were a lot of creaky ol' Codgers at Wikimania affectionately brainstorming ways to improve WP. And reminiscing, like Codgers do: don't you miss the days when you were nostalgic? But real conversations, real hopes and plans, with a healthy sense of humor. — Catherine\talk 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and: Oh, how old do I have to be to qualify?—ScouterSig 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that own vinyl records 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that own vinyl records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category for users who own vinyl records does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; the mere fact of owning a record implies neither an above-average ability nor desire to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject. There is ample precedent against "ownership" categories, and two are particularly relevant to this case:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Austria-Hungary 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by a userbox (which is currently the only member) that expresses support for Austria-Hungary. Support/oppose categories, especially politically-oriented ones, do not foster encyclopedic collaboration, as the mere fact of supporting or opposing an idea or entity implies neither an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject nor above-average access to sources about the subject.
  • Delete as nom and per ample precedent (see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even seem serious. —ScouterSig 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 23 edit

Category:Wikipedians that love Japanese food 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that love Japanese food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, see discussion of September 10th. -- Prove It (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User TeX-2 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight 0001 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User TeX-2 to Category:User TeX
Nominator's rationale: Category:User TeX is populated by Template:User TeX, and there are no babelised userboxes for TeX (see {{User TeX-1}}, {{User TeX-2}}, {{User TeX-3}}). Thus, a single babelised category for only one user seems unnecessary. When the overall category tree makes no distinction between editors by level of expertise, it's hard to believe that someone would specifically want to single out a user with only an "intermediate" knowledge of TeX. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge with no prejudice against creating sub-categories later if need arises. Knowledge in TeX can be quite important as Wikipedia itself is a descendant of this potent typesetting language. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although the option of renaming the parent hasn't yet been suggested, I want to note that "tex" is the ISO 639-3 code for Tennet. Thus, unlike in some other cases, we probably oughtn't rename the parent to match the lowercase convention of Category:Wikipedians by programming language. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. Horologium t-c 03:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcats of Category:User LPC 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. After Midnight 0001 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User LPC-1, Category:User LPC-2, Category:User LPC-3, and Category:User LPC-4 to Category:User LPC
Nominator's rationale: This category tree of five categories contains only three actual users; all other pages are either userboxes or directories of userboxes. As this is a userbox-populated category, interested editors can easily determine another user's level of expertise with the LPC programming language by checking their userpage. With only three users in the category, this is unlikely to be more time-consuming than browsing through four subcategories.
As is generally the case in these situations, upmerging would be without prejudice to recreation should a legitimate need arise. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per number of users being less than number of categories, and consider renaming to Category:User lpc. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to such a rename, especially since "lpc" does not correspond to any ISO 639-3 language code. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe merge into Category:User LPC, but not Category:User lpc. Capitalization matters. The name of the programming language is LPC, not lpc. Overall, I would prefer to see the programming languages move away from the babel convention. (Honestly, I would like to see the human languages move away from the babel convention, but I think that is a lost battle.) Has there been any recent discussion about converting the remaining Category:User whatever categories? — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Category:User (X) format is currently used only for programming language, human language, and writing system categories. They were formerly used for musical instrument categories, but all were eventually converted to the "Wikipedian (X)" format (finishing in September 2007, if I recall correctly). Other than that, I'm not aware of any substantial debate to convert from one style to the other. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I'm not a big fan of the convention either, but recognize it as convention. (This seems eerily familiar to a conversation I had with jc37 not too long ago…) I won't complain at all if Category:User LPC is used, hence my weak suggestion that the lower-case be merely considered. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:User LPC, as per nom. Oppose renaming to Category:User lpc as per following rationale. Horologium t-c 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it has been the convention in the past to use all-lowercase category names, it appears to be a holdover from the language categories, which use the (all-lowercase) ISO 639 names, and writing systems, which use the (all lowercase) ISO 15924 names. Since programming languages are neither, and some of the names could create confusion (such as TeX/tex), I suggest that the programming categories use the actual name of the language, including the same use of case as the relevant article. Horologium t-c 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Uniandino wikipedians 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uniandino wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of the Andes, Colombia
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. The ", Colombia" clarifier is necessary as there are 3-4 universities with the name University of the Andes. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Carpenters 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Carpenters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, since we deleted Wikipedians by musician. -- Prove It (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not even an actual "interest" category, but a "fan" category (see Template:User Carpenters). Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE, we shouldn't categorise users by their favourite bands, musicians, etc. A userbox is more than adequate to convey the sentiment. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice for recreation later as an actual Wikipedians interested in... category. The category is presently empty (and therefore cannot be useful), and the wording on the category page indicates that the category is intended as fan-centric (which violates the precedent cited by ProveIt). — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It dosen't help work on the Carpenters article. Marlith T/C 04:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 22 edit

Category:Wikipedians who program in NewLISP 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:User newLISP. After Midnight 0001 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who program in NewLISP to Category:User newlisp (or Category:User newLISP)
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by programming language, programming language categories should follow the Babel user category format. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who read Orwell 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read Orwell to Category:Wikipedians who read George Orwell
Nominator's rationale: For clarity and per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who read Poe 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read Poe to Category:Wikipedians who read Edgar Allan Poe
Nominator's rationale: For clarity and per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who experiment with psychoactive drugs 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who experiment with psychoactive drugs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for editors who use psychoactive drugs and not, as I originally thought, a category for medical researchers who conduct experiments with such substances. (The fact that User:Tylerdmace/Userboxes/drugexp uses Image:LSD blotter.jpg is not definitive proof, but it should be fairly convincing.) Such a user category does not foster collaboration and is, in addition, virtually all-inclusive; after all, psychoactive drugs include everything from anesthetics to analgesics, alcohol to antidepressants, and coffeine to cocaine. I oppose renaming this to an encyclopedic "interest" category, as that is clearly not its intent. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. Please also note that while the category is found in Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs, that parent was not added by the creator. It was added by another user about a week after the category's creation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per "Wikipedians who drive cars", and any number of other such cats which have been deleted in the past. Plus, there is the vagueness of the usage of the term "drug" to deal with as well. See also [discussion] which resulted in the creation of "Wikipedians interested in drugs". Personally, I think that this is a "consumable", and should be deleted since all the rest of the food-based/smoking-based categories were. - jc37 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:SMirC-stoned.svg - Does not help with encyclopedic contributions. User cats are rarely used I believe. Marlith T/C 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Who Like Sports Cars 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians Who Like Sports Cars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. The number of things which individuals like or dislike is infinite, but few (if any) are relevant to encyclopedia-building or justify the creation of distinct groupings on their basis. Besides, who doesn't like sports cars? – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in sports cars. To answer the question posed in the nomination, me. :) On a serious note, it's possible that this user category is useful to collaboration on various articles on sports cars (I imagine there are a whole slew of such articles), but the category name should be adjusted to make the collaboration opportunities more obvious. (Take my "vote" with a huge grain of salt as I am quite ignorant about sports cars.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so they're not particularly enticing beyond having an "ooh ... shiny" effect. :)
    • An interest category would be fine if it was created and populated naturally; however, if you check the text of the userbox, and check the creator's and sole member's contributions history (0 edits to the mainspace), I think you will see that this category is not intended to express an encyclopedic interest in the subject of sports cars. I don't think we ought to rename this category simply to preserve categorisation, as editors who have an actual encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject of sports cars will create a new, appropriately-titled category and place themselves in it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since renaming a category mean deleting it, and then replacing it, I think that a result of the discussion could be to: Rename, but don't replace in certain (or all) userboxes. And replacement of the adding of the category on userpages should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. (Often it's just a subst userbox - but if not, removal with a note of what they can re-add would seem appropriate.) Our goal should always be to err on the side of caution and never miscategorise Wikipedians if we can possibly help it. - jc37 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true ... such selective renames can prove useful (in fact, that gives me an idea for a problematic category that I encountered a while ago ...). However, in this particular instance, there is only one user in the category, so a selective renaming will leave the category empty. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A reasonable compromise is delete with no prejudice against the interest category being created if someone sees fit to create it. Nothing significant would be lost by such an action. I would also recommend leaving such a note on MR.GUM???'s talk page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in sports cars, and make it a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest instead of Category:Wikipedians. This is an useful category. For example, if an expert is needed on the subject of sports cars, users in this category could be asked to help. • EvanS :: talk § email § photos • 16:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There's nothing preventing you from creating such a category. As the category in question is populated by a single individual, Black Falcon has convinced me that an actual rename is unnecessary. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, without prejudice regarding creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports cars later. I generally support "Wikipedians intersted in..." renaming (and would not avidly oppose such a rename), but that seems inappropriate in this case. Pardon my profiling, but I do not think that MR.GUM??? is particularly interested in contributing to sports-car-related articles. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcats of Category:User ABAP 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. After Midnight 0001 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User ABAP-1, Category:User ABAP-2, Category:User ABAP-3, and Category:User ABAP-4 to Category:User ABAP
Nominator's rationale: Despite being created about one-and-a-half years ago, this category tree of five categories contains only three users. As this is a userbox-populated category, interested editors can easily determine another user's level of expertise with ABAP by checking their userpage. With only three users in the category, this is unlikely to be more time-consuming than browsing through four subcategories.
Having only skimmed the rather technical main article, I cannot determine whether the language has been obsoleted and, thus, whether the precedent of the Sep. 14 discussion for the BASIC categories applies. Upmerging should be without prejudice to recreation should a legitimate need for such arise. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per number of users being less than number of categories. To answer an (implicit) question in the nomination, the language has not been obsoleted. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User ABAP. We've had this same discussion in the past about underpopulated category "trees". Essentially, "merge up", until there are enough members to justify "babelisation". - jc37 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as per nom. As there has been no suggestion to change the category name to all-lowercase, I have no opposition to the proposal as stated. Horologium t-c 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 21 edit

Category:Wikipedians vigilant about external links 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 20:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians vigilant about external links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Although the title suggests that this is a collaborative category of editors who work with external links, it is actually a support/oppose category, for which there is ample precedent for deletion. The category is populated by a template that states: "This user is against excessive use of external links." In addition, it is all-inclusive, since virtually every good-faith editor opposes the "excessive" (however defined) use of external links. At minimum, it includes every editor who does not completely reject the "External links" guideline. Finally, the optimal hub for actual collaboration regarding external links is at WikiProject External links.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcats of Category:User a68 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge all to Category:User ALGOL 68. After Midnight 0001 20:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User a68-1, Category:User a68-2, Category:User a68-3, and Category:User a68-4 to Category:User a68
Nominator's rationale: Despite being created over two years ago, this category still contains only one user (in Category:User a68-4). Moreover, as far as I can tell, the ALGOL 68 programming language (developed in 1968) has been obsoleted by various other programming languages, so the precedent of the Sep. 14 discussion for the BASIC categories probably applies. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge with the understanding that if a legitimate reason arises for recreating the sub-categories later, it be allowed. ALGOL 68 is the grandfather of C, ada, and bash and deserves much reverence. That few (if any) people program in it anymore does not lessen the value in being able to find someone with expertise in the language. (Not that anyone is arguing to delete the primary user category of course.) Clearly, however, a category with a single user does not merit 4 sub-categories. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I overlooked that in the nomination, but agree that upmerging should be without prejudice to recreation if the need arises. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't it make more sense to merge them into a less-opaque category like Category:User ALGOL 68 if we are going to tinker with the categories? I support a merge, but perhaps a rename is in order as well. Horologium t-c 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:User ALGOL 68 per ALGOL 68 and per precedent of merging other historical programming languages (such as this discussion about BASIC and several other such discussions on that archive page). - jc37 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User SmallTalk 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge all. After Midnight 0001 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User SmallTalk to Category:User Smalltalk (or Category:User smalltalk)
Nominator's rationale: According to this page, "the spelling of the Smalltalk programming language is 'Smalltalk' not 'SmallTalk' [and t]his is an irksome point for many Smalltalk coders". I have no opinion on whether the "S" in "Smalltalk" should be upper- or lowercase, but the "T" should be lowercase. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User SmallTalk-1 edit
Propose merging Category:User SmallTalk-1 to its parent category
Nominator's rationale: Subcategorisation for this programming language seems unnecessary. The precedent of the discussion for the BASIC categories may apply, but I'm not sufficiently informed about the subject to make a definitive claim. If no consensus to merge, then rename per above. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 19 edit

Category:Wikipedians who play Madden NFL games 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Madden NFL games - per the recent deletion of the Wikipedians by video game subcats. - jc37 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: This is the recent discussion I was referring to. - jc37 02:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Orange Mike 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments on previous deletion discussions. Marlith T/C 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users Who Have Found The User:Pier Snake's Secret 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. No categories for userpage games. After Midnight 0001 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users Who Have Found The User:Pier Snake's Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete somehow I don't see this as as a defining characteristic. -- Prove It (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 17 edit

Category:Druidist Wikipedians 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Druidist Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category_inclusion, "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default." This category is not useful at present, as the user box is not in use by any users. It exists only on pages which collect a bunch of userboxes. Gimmetrow 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThanks very much for the link, Gimmetrow. There's always something new to learn about Wikipedia processes. Cheers,Pigmanwhat?/trail 19:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the fact the name is ridiculous. Neither Neo-druids nor Druids are called "Druidists". While someone can call themselves whatever they please in their userspace, creating WP categories for terms no one else uses is not really appropriate. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Neologism. I am not opposed to a re-creation of the category under the name "Druidic Wikipedians" if the category is populated. Horologium t-c 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 16 edit

Category:Celtist Wikipedians 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celtist Wikipedians There are actually a slew of cats created by a user with only one user in the cat: himself. I'm afraid I'm not sure of the criteria for speedy deletion of cats so I'm putting this one here as a test case to get opinions to guide me. Pointers to the relevant criteria would be helpful as well. I'll probably find it but hey, asking works well. Pigmanwhat?/trail 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same reasoning as Category:Druidist Wikipedians, below above. Gimmetrow 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gimmetrow. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Another neologism. Horologium t-c 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this cat is nearly dead. Marlith T/C 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 13 edit

Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - See also Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Other societies/fraternal organizations have recently been deleted. All the professional associations that make up the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by computing or engineering organization have been put up for discussion except this one. The only thing that distinguishes it from the others is that it is an American organization, but I'd prefer to think that that's an honest oversight. - --Paularblaster 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am positive it was an honest oversight; the nominator of the other categories is not American. I am not sure of his nationality, but his spelling gives him away. Horologium t-c 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's reassuring. Thanks. I was starting to wonder if the French might not have a point ;-) --Paularblaster 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't an oversight. I'm attempting to "take it slow". Part of what I'm hoping to do is reduce the amount of disruption, and since it's been shown lately that large categories can induce more disruption due to the sense of personal identification (IWANTIT), I was going to wait until the others were closed before nominating. As such, I'm staying Neutral for now, pending more discussion in the other nominations. - jc37 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if that is to be the general policy with professional organizations. Otherwise move to subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession rather than Category:Wikipedians by organization. - --Paularblaster 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be the general practice for the moment, but this can change back again if WPedians want it to. It isn't made for us by some outside figures; we make it ourself. In any event, the categories are deleted individually so that the people who think otherwise about a particular one can say what they think--just as jc37 says. I think this one at least is significant professionally and for writing articles, especially with the traditional subject emphasis in WP. DGG (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a valid deletion reason. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to agree - but it's the reason given in all the other cases of comparable British and Australian associations. I hope you've made the same point there? (And I see that you did!)--Paularblaster 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See also User_talk:Swatjester#CFD for an extended discussion about this.) - jc37 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination criteria is deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See previous --Paularblaster 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have made similar points on those other discussions, the IEEE is not an American organization (although it began as one). From the IEEE article, "It has the most members of any technical professional organization in the world, with more than 360,000 members in around 175 countries." (I'm one of those members.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - president for deleting user cats for professional organizations is, at most, relatively weak and controversial (which flies in the face of the rationale for precedents being useful). If anything, it seems to be heading in the opposite direction presently -- not with very substantial force, but the slightly older short wave of UCFDs wasn't exactly substantial either (considering scope of participation, instead of just counting UCFD results). I really don't see why this UCAT should be deleted, and if anyone does think that it should, a non-referential reason has yet to be posted. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it helps write articles and useful collaboration. Marlith T/C 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User zh-classical 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - Noting (in no specific order): 1.) There doesn't seem to be a direct ISO code for this, per the discussion below. 2.) zh-classical is the abbreviation for the classical chinese Wikipedia. and 3.) so far no one has shown why a category is necessary for a classical language. - jc37 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This is a writing system category and so should follow the convention of Category:Wikipedians by writing system (which adheres to ISO 15924 standards) rather than Category:Wikipedians by language (which adheres to ISO 639-3 standards). The generic ISO 15924 code for Chinese writing systems is "Hani". – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. Horologium t-c 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Classical Chinese is not a writing system. It differs grammatically, lexically and stylistically from vernacular Chinese. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a linguist, so I won't dispute your assertion, but could you then please clarify the following excerpts from the article Classical Chinese:
  • "Classical Chinese or Literary Chinese is a traditional style of written Chinese ..."
  • "Among Chinese speakers, Classical Chinese has been largely replaced by Vernacular Chinese (白話, báihuà), a style of writing that is similar to modern spoken Mandarin Chinese, while speakers of non-Chinese languages have largely abandoned Classical Chinese in favor of local vernaculars.
  • The issue is that classical Chinese is a dead form of the language that all the ancient Chinese classics were written in, and most high-brow literary works up to a hundred years ago. Nobody fully agrees on how it was pronounced (probably closer to today's Cantonese than to today's Mandarin is about as far as consensus goes), so it is only available in the written form, but the differences are as least as great as between Latin and Italian. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have said no agreement on how it was pronounced in ancient times - and can be pronounced in all sorts of ways. Because the script is not alphabetic, Japanese, Korean and Chinese scholars (for instance) could use it to write to one another without actually having an agreed pronunciation. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I definitely appreciate your explanations, some confusion still persists. For instance, are different variants of Classical Chinese (e.g. as used by Japanese, Korean and Chinese scholars) mutually intelligible? If Classical Chinese is a written language, then what writing system does it use? Does it match any of the languages listed here? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally they should have been mutually intelligible, but to what extent they were in fact I couldn't say (we need someone with more knowledge than me, I've only got evening-school modern Chinese - perhaps someone in the user category at issue?). The link you provided doesn't bring up Classical Chinese: it only lists living varieties. And a wider search of the site brings up Classical Mongolian and Classical Tibetan, but no Classical Chinese (but I might be doing something wrong - it isn't a readily navigable site). The pre-1949 Chinese script still in use in Hong Kong and Taiwan is, I think, the same script used for Classical Chinese (just as English and Italian use Latin script); in terms of "writing system" it is the same, so you picked the right category for a merge if that were the only thing at issue (but it isn't). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classical Chinese uses various styles of writings throughout its thousands of years of history. It is not on the list, because most people don't use it anymore as a result of various cultural revolutions. However, some people like me study it (and it is taught in secondary schools) just for culture background and shows excellent literacy. Its usage nowadays is just like Latin or Old English.--曹孟德 (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just left messages with half a dozen wikipedians who can write classical chinese, asking if one of them can clarify the categorization. This in itself suggests that the distinct category is a useful one - how else would I have found the CC users? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am currently taking a college class on Classical Chinese (also called Literary Chinese, or wenyan 文言), so I will try to clarify what it is. Classical Chinese was a historic written language that was probably never spoken. (There are scholars reconstructing the way the characters would have been pronounced, consented to be more similar to modern Cantonese than modern Mandarin, but the mechanics probably differed from vernacular spoken at the time.) This is also related to how Classical Chinese was a language of the elite - only the educated knew how to read, write, and understand it. Classical Chinese is not merely a different writing system (the characters are the same as in modern, and somewhat used for similar meanings), but a different language than Modern Chinese. The nuts and bolts of the language - like the sentence structure and grammar, are very different than Modern Chinese. This is a significant linguistic shift that the current Wikipedia categorization correctly reflects. Shimawa zen (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGAINST I am a Chinese person whom understands Classical and Vernacular Chinese. I strongly agree to the clarification above. Classical Chinese and Vernacular Chinese are not interchangeable, although they use similar writings and pronounciations. Classical Chinese might not able to count as another language, but should definately separated from Vernacular Chinese. Apparently there is not a strong reason for merging.--曹孟德 (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy close. Actual CFD nominations are necessary only when suggesting deletion, renaming, or merging of one or more categories. While nominations can be useful to solicit general discussion about an individual category, where the nominator is unsure what should be done, general discussion about an entire user category tree (as requested here) is more suited to the category's talk page or Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion. Another option is a mass nomination, but this should be pursued only if the nominator has an idea of what they'd like to see happen; otherwise, talk page discussion is more suited to the purpose. As this particular nomination includes only the parent category, which cannot be deleted unless the ca. 150 subcategories are also deleted or relocated, and since neither option has been suggested in the nomination and no argument has been presented for either course of action, this nomination cannot produce an actual result. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discuss - what is to be done about these? Michael J Swassing 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 12 edit

Category:Wikipedian Republicans 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete', CSD G4. ^demon[omg plz] 06:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Republicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This probably counts as a repost of Category:Republican Wikipedians, see discussion of August 10th. -- Prove It (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Repost Lurker (said · done) 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as recreation. [this] shows the recent addition of the category to the populating userbox. - jc37 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This meets the spirit, but not the letter, of CSD G4. It is a category for supporters of a political party, and thus falls under the Aug 10 discussion (and subsequent confirming precedents). However, whereas this is a category for supporters of a political party, Category:Republican Wikipedians was a category for supporters of Republicanism. I think a speedy delete would not be unwarranted. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire and brimstone but allow recreation of Category:Democrat Wikipedians. One of those two allows for collaboration.--19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs)
  • I'm not sure if you are serious. If you are, I strongly disagree with allowing the recreation of either category, or categories for any political party or ideological alignment. We end up with endless debates over "What about X?" (cf the debate over the deletion of Category:Wikipedian Brights, which had countless references to Category:Christian Wikipedians, despite the fact that it was targeted as a philosophy category, and the Christian category is religious in nature.) Let's not have a re-run of that fiasco. Horologium t-c 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are religion user categories superior to philosophy user categories? The references to the religion category were relevant because it demonstrated that the decision to keep/delete user categories is at least partially capricious. More and stronger arguments were made to keep Category:Wikipedian Brights than Category:Christian Wikipedians (partly because the latter was used as a template for the former, since all of the arguments for one apply to the other). I know some editors like to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the point is not that the religion category exists, but that it survived UCFD based off weaker arguments than what killed the philosophy category. So my question remains, why are religion user categories superior to philosophy user categories? (And yes, I agree with ScouterSig that Waltcip was just being funny.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that everyone who is in this category ended up there because the category creator also added the cat to {{User:Libertyville/GOP}}; I have reverted that edit, and the category should be depopulated. I will leave a note on the editor's userpage letting him know what happened, and include a link to the original UCfD from 10 August, and to this discussion as well. Horologium t-c 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I think Waltcip was being funny. —ScouterSig 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although I disagree with the original deletion, this is a recreation of that category, and as such should be deleted. Hopefully, this category and others like it will be allowed to be recreated through proper channels, but until that time this category should be deleted as it was not recreated through proper channels as best as I can tell. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism - See also Society for Creative Anachronism. Other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted. - jc37 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though there isn't an 'interest' category that I can find. —ScouterSig 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Removing vote to delete, and now stand as neutral. —ScouterSig 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article, the SCA focuses on pre-1601 Western European history. Thus, the following 'interest' categories could be relevant: Category:Wikipedians interested in history, Category:Wikipedians interested in the Middle Ages, Category:Wikipedians interested in the Renaissance, and Category:Wikipedians interested in Germanic history. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which seems to imply to me (this might or might not be your intent, Black Falcon, and I suspect it is not) that this is a useful user category. Not all user categories have to be phrased in the form "Wikipedians interested in X" or "Wikipedians who speak Y", etc. Your due diligence demonstrates that this user category can be helpful over a spectrum of collaboration opportunities. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it's true that not all user categories must necessarily explicitly reflect an interest or skill, user categories should aim to be as directly relevant as possible to the attribute that is useful for collaboration. An organisational membership category may (or may not) imply interest in or knowledge of a subject; an "interest" category directly expresses such interest. It's a matter of efficiency and redundancy. Of course, my comment was intended to provide the information requested by Scoutersig rather than to attempt to sway his position (you'll note that I haven't supported deletion in this case). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—no reason was given for deletion other than the deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also reasons to keep (as explained above), but most importantly no reason other than precedence has been given for delete. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is not a valid deletion reason. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See also User_talk:Swatjester#CFD for an extended discussion about this.) - jc37 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - although my gut instinct, as a member for over a third of a century (A.S. VI, when Cariadoc was first king of the Middle), is to cry Keep, I am painfully aware of my COI here. Is the precedent based in a specific policy which governs user categories, or has the majority on CfD just been deletionist of late? I don't want to violate clear policy, if there is one; but I'm not so sure that we haven't been discarding some useful user cats of late. --Orange Mike 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've voiced similar concerns over on the Wikipedia talk:Userboxes page (as have others). IMO, there is no clear policy. We should make that policy clear one way or the other. Citing precedence is a poor substitute, as it is possible to cite other precedence as well (which usually results in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rebuttal, which is why I've pointed out that the first citing of precedence is essentially the same type of argument). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is fairly clear, and rooted in WP:NOT. Categories that do not foster collaboration are to be deleted; when and where there is disagreement, it can be worked out in individual discussions. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep': re-enactors have knowledge ranges that are not the same as the usual history buff's, often about details that a professional an academic historian (such as myself) would too readily dismiss as "antiquarian". - --Paularblaster (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - some of us are both historians and anachronists (although my mundane specialty is 19th and 20th century U.S., and my SCA persona is a 1550s Cherokee who's fled Spain for Britain). But an SCA member knows a lot more about what a byrnie feels like in motion or sleeping wrapped up in a belted plaid; according to urban legend, Michael Moorcock complained that such detailed knowledge by writers like Poul Anderson took the "poetic" beauty out of their fantasy in favor of shabby realism. --Orange Mike 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Institution of Engineering and Technology 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Institution of Engineering and Technology - See also Institution of Engineering and Technology. Other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted. - jc37 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category:Wikipedians by profession: this is a professional association, not a club. --Paularblaster 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Wikipedians by profession is a parent category for actional profession categories (e.g. researcher, computer scientist, accountant); it is not a category to express membership in organisations really suited for individual organisation categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then how do you suggest we categorize professional bodies if Category:Wikipedians by organization is being cleared out root and branch? Electrical, electronic and technical engineering are surely "actional profession categories"? --Paularblaster 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Note: I have slightly revised my comment above so that it is clearer.) In terms of the location of the categories, I could see them simply being placed in their corresponding profession categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society could be placed into Category:Wikipedian psychologists, though I still favour simply merging that one); that would allow Category:Wikipedians by organization to be cleared out. Still, in most cases, I think categorisation directly on the basis of profession/skill/expertise is preferable to categorisation on the basis of organisational membership, which only indirectly implies a particular profession/skill/expertise. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got it! We can put them in the category "wikipedians interested in technology", alongside "wikipedians interested in scouting". - --Paularblaster 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it would be better to keep the profession and interest category trees separate. The former implies expertise in an area, irrespective of interest; the latter suggests interest in an area, irrespective of expertise. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep time to reverse the trend. It's up to us if we want to change it--this policy is made here and can be changed here. I doubt I have consensus among those who habitually attend these discussions, but perhaps I will come to have it more generally, or at least among enough people who are interested in the traditional professional subjects at the heart of Wikipedia. In any case, as Black Falcon says, this would be in the professional tree. He's right about keeping them separate.DGG (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a valid deletion reason. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See also User_talk:Swatjester#CFD for an extended discussion about this.) - jc37 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and invalid deletion rationale (similar to WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Australian Computer Society 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Australian Computer Society - Single user category. And other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted. - jc37 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite being created a year ago, the category still contains only one user. Although the ACS is a professional society, I think information about profession and skill could be conveyed more usefully through a profession or skill category, rather than through an organisational membership category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the collaborative scope of this category (if any) seems to be limited to one article only. In such cases, the article's talk page serves as the perfect hub for collaboration. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Skills can be more specifically and clearly conveyed. The user being part of the ACS gives me only a vague idea of their abilities.Jame§ugrono 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep time to reverse the trend. Those with professional interest--and expertise--in a subject will want to consult with others--consult, not agree with. It's up to us if we want to change the practice here--this policy is made here and can be changed here. I doubt I have consensus among those who habitually attend these discussions, but perhaps I will come to have it more generally, or at least among enough people who are interested in the traditional professional subjects at the core of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per DGG and half of the deletion rationale being invalid (similar to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:ALLORNOTHING). That there is only 1 member in the category does weaken the reason to keep. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the fact that "the collaborative scope of this category (if any) seems to be limited to one article only. In such cases, the article's talk page serves as the perfect hub for collaboration"? – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a valid deletion rationale, but incorrect. Clearly, Wikipedians in the Australian Computer Society would be expected to know about (a) computing, (b) Australia, and most importantly (c) the intersection of these these two topics. For example (and I could come up with dozens of these), if I wanted information regarding encryption laws in Australia, this would seem to be a natural resource, right? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Multiple interesction in a single category is not usually a good idea, and I'm not just talking about Wikipedian categories. See Wikipedia:Overcategorisation for some examples. If these can (and are) covered by other categories, then these should be deleted as duplication. - jc37 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Intersection != overcategorization. Where would you recommend going for a list of Wikipedians who might have significant knowledge about computing in Australia? This intersection is a useful intersection and not a trivial one (as mentioned in Wikipedia:Overcategorisation). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the easiest answer would be to suggest that you may wish to read the very next section: Wikipedia:Overcategorisation#Intersection by location. - jc37 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea:
                "Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics (for example, Roman Catholic Bishops of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio or New Orleans Saints quarterbacks).
                In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics."
              • As I pointed out, that boundary does have "relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". Hence, this is not over-categorization. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, I don't see that you did show that it has "relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". If you feel that there is such, please clarify. - jc37 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Australia is a sovereign nation (and a large one at that) with its own laws that affect computing. Hence, the geographical boundary of Australia has relevance on the subject of computing. The example I cited was encryption law in Australia. There are dozens other I could give, but if you want them I'll put them on your talk page as this discussion is already getting a bit long. Barring that, do you now understand how that boundary does have "relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics", and hence this is not over-categorization? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't see how that would be different than (for example) LGBT laws of certain countries. Or laws concerning the religious in certain countries. The point is that categories shouldn't be used for such intersection. It's duplicative, and it's still OVERCAT. But besides that, that's not what we're discussing. We're not discussing: "Australian Wikipedians interested in computing", we're discussing an organisation which has that intersection as a suggested criteria for membership (though it's not restricted to that requirement - which pretty much kills your arguement). To address this category, I'm looking over this. There would appear to be innumerable such organisations. Do we add them all, and essentially duplicate the "by interest" categories, multiplied by every country around the world?? Of course not. Duplication is simply a bad idea. As for your concern, while I welcome talk page discussions, this discussion would appear to be one useful in determining consensus. And I don't think "length" is an issue in these discussions, as much as being "off-topic". - jc37 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I think the LGBT example is a good one, as is the religion one. If someone suggested such a user category, I would see no problem with it, either. It is not duplicative, as the intersection could be useful. Each organization brings something slightly different in terms of the expected expertise of its members, so its not duplicative. (Again, how else would you find someone who was knowledgeable about computing issues specific to Australia?) We do not need to add them all, only those that are deemed useful by members of Wikipedia. Not everyone needs to find them useful to be useful, of course. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that most people would not find useful. However, they still have a place in this encyclopedia as they are useful to certain people. As for the specifics of ACS, as compared to other possible professional organizations related to computing in Australia, I'll plead ignorance. That they seem to consider themselves (per the link you provide) similar to the ACM, however, suggests to me that my initial assumptions about their usefulness is probably apt. Someone knowledgeable about Australia would probably be better able to answer that specific question. (I'm assuming that you're about as knowledgeable about Australia as I am, an assumption that could admittedly be wrong.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • WP:USEFUL aside for a moment, I used those examples as ones which are shown specifically in OCAT as not a good idea. And to answer your question: (Again, how else would you find someone who was knowledgeable about computing issues specific to Australia?) - How about look under whichever relevant "interested in" category related to the aspect of computing that you're looking for, and see if such a person also is under "by location". Again, this discussion isn't about "Australian Wikipedians interested in computing". Though if it was, I'd still suggest deletion for the reasons outlined above. - jc37 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • "I used those examples as ones which are shown specifically in OCAT as not a good idea." I do not see those examples in OCAT, although I do see other LGBT examples. Per that page, LGBT writers=relevant, LGBT murderers=not relevant. I would argue "Wikipedian LGBT in Australia" (or similar) might be relevant, if someone in related areas deemed it to be so. Of course, it's hard for people not involved in LGBT issues to really know if it's relevant, just like it might be hard for people not involved in computing issues to know if the intersection of Australia and computing is relevant.
                          • "How about look under whichever relevant 'interested in' category related to the aspect of computing that you're looking for, and see if such a person also is under 'by location'." That's extremely inefficient. That would take O(n) time (where n is the number of people in the interested in category or the location category), whereas having the combined category requires O(1) time. I.e., you might have to look at hundreds of Wikipedians interested in "x" before finding one located in "y".
                          • The strongest argument I see for delete is that this is category is only populated by a single user, despite being a year old (hence the "weak" in my "weak keep"). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reasoning as above. — xDanielx T/C\R 11:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Single user category == no one to collaborate with. ^demon[omg plz] 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I relocated this comment from the above section as this is where it seems to have been intended. This is the only single-user professional association category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 23:16, November 21, 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete; nomination is in good faith and is valid. After Midnight 0001 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery - See also Association for Computing Machinery. "The Association for Computing Machinery, or ACM, was founded in 1947 as the world's first scientific and educational computing society." - Other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted. - jc37 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —ScouterSig 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep time to reverse the trend. It's up to us if we want to change it--this policy is made here and can be changed here. I doubt I have consensus among those who habitually attend these discussions, but perhaps I will come to have it more generally, or at least among enough people who are interested in the traditional professional subjects at the heart of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—no reason was given for deletion other than the deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You may wish to read a quote near the top of my talk page for a comment about that. And per that, you may also wish to check out Wikipedia:Overcategorisation as well. - jc37 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ACM is a national organization that spans numerous computer-related disciplines and has enormous membership and significance. It does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Overcategorisation. You're right, of course, that the nomination rationale can also be described as WP:ALLORNOTHING, although I'm genuinely somewhat confused as to why you would point that out… Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a valid deletion reason. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reason was given to keep.--13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs)
    An obvious reason to keep is collaboration. I believe this out-weighs the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale given in the nomination, as well as the over-categorization rationale. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the other reason to keep is bucking the trend for the sake of bucking the trend.--WaltCip 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a weak rationale for keep. Of course, having a weak rationale for keeping does not make other rationales for keeping weak by association. Furthermore, no reason to delete has been given beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:ALLORNOTHING. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiousity, WaltCip, if no reason was given to keep and no reason was given to delete, why do you think delete has precedence? (Of course, I've now given a good reason to keep—one that seemed obvious enough to go without saying, but I was obviously wrong in that assumption.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is equally no reason to keep and no reason to delete, then the will of the nominator takes precedence. If the reverse were true, Wikipedia would have an infinite number of articles.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, strongly influenced by creator's comment. After Midnight 0001 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society - See British Psychological Society. Category has 2 members. One is already in Category:Wikipedians interested in psychology, and the other is in Category:Wikipedian psychologists (a subcat of the "interested in" cat). The existance of the other categories effectively makes this one a single article category. And other societies/fraternal organisations categories have also been recently deleted. - jc37 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I intended to suggest a merge to the corresponding profession or interest categories, but I see that's not necessary. Also note that the creator does not object to deletion of the category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a subcategory of Wikipedian psychologists (it's a professional association, not just a club). --Paularblaster 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how does its separate existence foster encyclopedic collaboration? – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who knows when you might need a specifically British psychologist's expertise? (After all - if boy scouts can be categorized by national association ...) --Paularblaster 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The scouting cat went through a discussion of its own, and was renamed by interest as a result of that discussion. In this case, the two members are already members of the existing "by interest" cat (one directly, and one in a subcat), so there is no need for the rename/merge. - jc37 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Wasn't this nominated for deletion recently? Lurker (said · done) 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See this. - jc37 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep time to reverse the trend. Those with professional interest--and expertise--in a subject will want to consult with others--consult, not agree with. It's up to us if we want to change the practice here--this policy is made here and can be changed here. I doubt I have consensus among those who habitually attend these discussions, but perhaps I will come to have it more generally, or at least among enough people who are interested in the traditional professional subjects. DGG (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to highlight that there are separate categories for those with an interest or professional expertise in psychology: Category:Wikipedians interested in psychology and Category:Wikipedian psychologists. Is a break-down by individual associations really necessary? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are separate categories for those interested in psychology, but nothing to indicate which of them can provide information on this institution itself (which provides accreditation to professional psychologists), or by extension on the teaching, practice or regulation of psychology in a specifically British context. The fact that the category only has two members shows the rarity value of such individuals on wikipedia, and the difficulty it would be to pick them out of an otherwise undifferentiated mass of "psychologists" and "those interested in psychology". - --Paularblaster (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paularblaster. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:DGG, -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I pose the same question to you: Since there already are separate categories for those with an interest or professional expertise in psychology, what added value is inherent in a category that subdivides psychologists by association? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Wikipedian psychologists. It is useful to be able to identify people with qualifications in a subject area, a subcat for specific organisations seems like overcategorisation. Lurker (said · done) 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and invalid nomination rationale. Categories are allowed to overlap and obviously this is not a single article category. That other similar categories have been deleted is irrelevant. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While overlap is certainly permitted and often useful, this seems to be more a case of complete redundancy. Also, why is overcategorisation an invalid deletion rationale? – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overcategorization is a valid deletion rationale, if this were indeed overcategorization. (And, in fact, I have supported deletions in the past based off that rationale.) Furthermore, I don't see overcategorization listed as a deletion rationale, other than perhaps implicitly. Perhaps you're inferring this from the nominator specifying there are only 2 members? That's more of a WP:BIG argument, than an WP:OVERCAT argument, IMO. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am inferring it not from the mere presence of just two members, but from the fact that both members are already otherwise categorised in a manner that expresses their interest and profession. In effect, the category only serves to express an organisational affiliation outside the context of providing information about profession and/or interest (such information already being provided by the other two categories). My question would be: what value is carried by a grouping of members of the BPS as opposed to a more inclusive grouping of psychologists and/or people interested in psychology? – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't feel their presence in other user categories is relevant, as that's pretty much true of any user category. (For example, I belong to the IEEE user category. I also belong to several programming interest categories, as do many, if not most, other members in the IEEE user category, I'd reckon. That does not make the IEEE user category less useful, however.) That there are only 2 members does make it difficult to discuss the merits well. I'll add a note to the talk page of BPS to see if we can't get a better answer to your question. (That there are only 2 members might be a valid reason to delete if there was no room for growth in this user category. See also Paularblaster's argument above as to why the small size is actually a valid reason to keep.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Current students and alumni of IET Bhaddal, Ropar 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Current students and alumni of IET Bhaddal, Ropar to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: IET Bhaddal
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: India and the main article IET Bhaddal, and to clarify that this is a user category, not a category for articles about alumni of IET Bhaddal. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and category standards. —ScouterSig 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per the nom. Speedy close if no one objects? — xDanielx T/C\R 11:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in Prem Rawat 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Interest categories for individuals are not necessary and probably not a good idea. They are not necessary because, in all cases, the main biographical article serves as the most logical hub for collaboration. They are probably not a good idea because we have hundreds of thousands of biographical articles, and categories for even a small fraction would flood the user category system. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (unless a case can be made that this is a minority subset of "by philosophy" or "by religion"). --Paularblaster 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, I can't see a use for this category. Terraxos 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support Saracens 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support Saracens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedian rugby football fans and all subcats, user categories for subnational rugby teams were deleted. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedian Saracens F.C. fans. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight 0001 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • DiscussMichael J Swassing 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to WikiGnomes. The two-word name sounds very clumsy. Lurker (said · done) 14:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename per Lurker, but doesn't having the category kind of defeat the purpose of being one? —ScouterSig 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that these categories were originally renamed to these titles per a 2006 October 16 discussion. Also, if one is to be renamed, it may be appropriate to consider all similar categories (for WikiFairies, WikiOgres, and the like) together, rather than individually. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming per above and delete. Why would any editor want to contact a random WikiGnome? The range of tasks performed by WikiGnomes is so broad as to make the category, in my view, unusable. A WikiGnome could be someone who: corrects typos, makes AWB edits, categorises pages, clears one or more of several dozen backlogs (each of which involves a different area of specialisation), reverts vandalism, updates transclusions, replaces redlinked redirects, archives discussions, performs pagemoves, and so on ..... There is no reason to assume that expertise in one area implies expertise in another. Also, I can't help but note the irony of having a category for WikiGnomes– Black Falcon (Talk) 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. Seems as sporadic as needing to contact a bot.--WaltCip 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming and Strongly oppose deletion - This is one of several "editing style" categories. I think that these can be useful indeed for collaboration. And I don't think "Wiki" in this case (as opposed to WikiProject) is enough to convey that it's not an article category. - jc37 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under one name or another. This particular category is most emphatically one that is devoted to improving the encyclopedia--its not an external interest. as for usefulness, someone like myself, who knows himself not consistent in paying attention to detail, might well want to ask someone who is to check my work. Yes its broad, but we could have smaller ones at well--but at present this is how WPedians self identify. DGG (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But what use is served by having any of the "editing style" groups organized into cats; especially this one, which is all about quietly and unobtusively improving articles by incremental changes. The userboxes are cute (and nobody has suggested deleting the related articles), but the cateogories don't serve any purpose. Who is going to go to the Wikignome category to find someone to make helpful changes? Horologium t-c 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 11 edit

Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive video games 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight 0001 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Japan exclusive video games - As a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by video game (which was recently deleted), this category was also deleted. However, I can see how this category is slightly different than just "Hey look, I play <x> game". I think it implies an interest in a gnere-of-sorts. So I'm relisting this category for further discussion, after having a discussion with the previous discussion's closer (who also generously restored the category). - jc37 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nominator. If no consensus to keep, at least suggest renaming to "something". - jc37 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? - How do you nominate something for deletion and then claim your rationale is to keep? I think if something is wrong with the user category, someone will let us know about it, rather than try to open up a can of worms.--WaltCip 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the confusion. The categories were deleted as a part of a group nomination, and I requested that the closer allow these to be restored for relisting in a separate nomination. (Which he graciously did.) Note that the name of this page is "User categories for discussion", not deletion : ) - jc37 22:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete seems to be intersection of "video gamers" and "japan," which I know is neither explicitly stated or true, but is implied. —ScouterSig 20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight 0001 10:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 5 edit

Category:SpamCop 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation. Image appears to have a proper license at first glance, so I won't speedy it- Someone can nominate it for IFD. VegaDark (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SpamCop - See the deletion log of Category:Wikipedians who use SpamCop, which refers to this discussion. This would appear to be a recreation. (Speedy deletion criteria G4.) (Image:SpamCop.gif should probably be removed as well.) - jc37 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nomination. Doczilla 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Permalink Archiving 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 10:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Permalink Archiving - See: User:Ceres3/Permalink Archiving. This looks like another "vanity" category ("Look, see who uses my code"), similar to other user-template-based categories which have been consistantly deleted in the past. - jc37 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category doesn't aid the sue of permalink archiving. Lurker (said · done) 18:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity category. Doczilla 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, per nom. SkierRMH 01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play sf0 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 10:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play sf0 - A video game and an online community. Both have been deleted recently. - jc37 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in orbter(sim) 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in orbter(sim) - The "By video game" cats have been deleted, and while this may be considered a "simulator" rather than a game, it's software that has a single article, and isn't useful as a technical resource for editors. It also is an obvious typo, and so should at least be renamed to match the article: Orbiter (sim) - jc37 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedents. Doczilla 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian math competition participants 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 10:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian math competition participants - single user category, and another "game show"/competition-style participants category. (Plus, what defines what a "math competition" is? I have a set of flash cards here, anyone up for a game?) - jc37 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Math competitions are popular here in the US, but I don't think they have many analogues elsewhere in the world. High Schools send groups of their better math students to participate in a series of quiz-show style competitions, where teams of students work to answer questions asked by a moderator. The first team to answer the question correctly gets the most points, and decreasing points are awarded to successive teams. There is also an individual competition, in which each student takes a quiz, and the highest scoring students win trophies. There are individual tests for each class (Algebra, Geometry, etc) and the schools with the highest total scores win trophies at the end of the competition. There are usually about a dozen of them here in Florida each year (held at different schools); I know they are also in other states. While they are interesting, individual competitions (and the students that participate in them) are ultimately non-notable. Horologium t-c 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Horologium t-c 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Horologium. This category doesn't provide useful information about editors above and beyond what a userpage notice and/or userbox could provide. In what, if anything, does it imply an expertise: geometry, algebra, statistics, differential calculus? Despite all of these frequently being lumped under the same label of "math", they are significantly different subjects. Moreover, the category doesn't even suggest what level of expertise is possessed. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all except kosher which will be upmerged to it's parent Jewish Wikipedians. As Halal is not a child of Muslim Wikipedians, I'll not force users into that category, but leave it to themselves to perform as desired. No prejudice against creation of categories for Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism, etc. After Midnight 0001 11:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by dietary philosophy
Category:Vegan Wikipedians
Category:Vegetarian Wikipedians
Category:Wikipedians who keep Halal
Category:Wikipedians who keep kosher
Category:Pescetarian Wikipedians
Category:Flexitarian Wikipedians
Category:Fruitarian Wikipedians
Category:Ovo-pesco vegetarian Wikipedians
- These are essentially food-related "lifestyle" categories. The "by food" categories have been consistantly deleted. The lifestyle categories were deleted, and this DRV of one of them, suggested "that these "status" categories (like "signs of the zodiac") do not contribute value to the encyclopedia, and may harm it by introducing factionalism."
I think it could be questioned whether there is much of a difference in "identification" (in terms of criteria for Wikipedian categorisation) between sexual preference and dietary preference. They are also userpage notices, and while a userpage notice (such as a userbox) may be useful, the categories aren't. - jc37 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator. - jc37 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and/or Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in vegitarianism andCategory:Wikipedians interested in veganism, and/or Category:Jewish Wikipedians and Category:Muslim Wikipedians. I agree with jc that these are lifestyle cats; interest cats are better. The religious cats I propose because I figure that those users will fall under those (Jewish and Muslim) cats anyway, not because I think that those (Jewish and Muslim) cats are appropriate. Just taking one step at a time. —ScouterSig 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the "Halal" and "kosher" categories, which should be merged into Category:Muslim Wikipedians and Category:Jewish Wikipedians (to be honest, I think those should be considered in a separate nomination). These are indeed lifestyle categories; however, they shouldn't just be renamed to "interest" categories as the people in them have not actually expressed an interest in the subject. Not everyone who is a vegan, vegetarian, etc. is an activist and/or has an active interest in the subject. Aside from various medical reasons that may affect individuals' diets, it's sometimes simply a question of taste and personal preferences; these choices are not necessarily motivated by ideology. Interest categories should be permitted to be created and populated naturally; we should avoid making such broad assumptions about the interests of individuals based on their expressed lifestyle choices. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you are vegetarian, you are interested in vegetarianism (which is such an awkward word). Yes, there are many reasons for these dietary choices: health, simplicity, religion, ethical reasons, and others. But if you make a conscious decision, you identify yourself as being interested in it, regardless of why you're interested. —ScouterSig 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that merging is probably not a good idea, but rather delete these, and allow the users to include themselves in whichever religion category they select. There may be those who may follow one of these lifestyle choices, but who may not necessarily follow a religion that the lifestyle may be associated with. - jc37 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as not lowering the quality of the encyclopedia, and therefore no reason why they should be deleted. They are not contentious, they can arguably help collaboration, and people should be allowed to choose their own listings this way if they want to. DGG (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and assume that any meaningful consensus of the wikipedia community includes the opinion of those who have chosen to include their user pages in these categories, even if they do not find their way to the discussion on this page. Michael J Swassing 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the Halal and Kosher ones (which can be merged into the Muslim and Jewish Wikipedian cats respectively). Harmless though these categories may be, they really don't add anything to the task of making an encyclopaedia. A category 'Wikipedians interested in vegetarianism' would be fine, and the Vegetarian one could probably just be replaced by that without much dispute; but the rest don't serve any useful purpose at all. Terraxos 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 4 edit

Category:Anarchosyndicalist Wikipedians 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 1 edit

Category:User:Mdd 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Per precedent, users do not get their own categories. After Midnight 0001 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mdd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedian User:Mdd, per convention of Category:Wikipedians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. I will start that category right away, and will leave Category:User:Mdd blank - Mdd 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 4 categories: Category:User:Mdd, Category:User:Mdd Archive, Category:Wikipedian User:Mdd, and Category:Wikipedian User:Mdd/Archive. There is actually no precedent for retaining user categories that house only the subpages of individual users; at minimum, such categories are redundant to the Special:Prefixindex function (e.g. Special:Prefixindex/User:Mdd). See a similar case at #Category:Dinote that is snowballing toward deletion. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the problem here. I have been and stil am developing more then 10 articles over a longer period and this category helps me to keep the overview... What is the problem?? - Mdd 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway. I was very glad that I could use this service for the past half a year here. If it is not allowed I can find other ways to keep my overview - Mdd 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "problem" as such with any individual category; rather, it is the issues of precedent (that VegaDark mentions below) and of redundancy to the Special:Prefixindex function. I apologise if I was unclear or came across strongly in my comment. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 4 per Black Falcon. One category for each individual user would allow for 5,719,191 categories, let alone 4 categories per user. All previous similar categories have been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's basically WP:ALLORNOTHING. Having 5,719,191 user categories is clearly less likely than having 5,719,191 user pages (i.e., "not even remotely"), and not any more "harmful". And it runs counter to the spirit of the (equally ad hoc) "lack of utility" rationale. Deletion arguments without a basis in policy or guideline are more or less bound to cause grief, since people will argue from precedents of other creations, failure to nominate for deletion, or decisions to keep. (c.f. "Brights vs. Christians".) Alai 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that I said "per Black Falcon" in addition to my additional reasons. That was simply one of many good reasons to delete this category. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps ... but what argument can you present to the 5,719,190 users if you make an exception for one? You state that "it runs counter to the spirit of the ... "lack of utility" rationale". How so? A category for the user subpages of an individual user is completely redundant to the Special:Whatlinkshere function. As for your last point, I'd like to note three things. First, creation does not really constitute a precedent, since anyone can create anything. Second, failure to nominate for deletion similar pages (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is a poor argument, since it requires the initial assumption that the pages are worth keeping. That is something that should be argued, demonstrated, or proven, not assumed. Third, there is ample precedent for (speedy) deleting these types of categories, so "decisions to keep" doesn't apply to this case. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me try to amplify my general point with a dilemmatic argument. Suppose on the one hand that your analysis of the precedents is exactly correct, and there is (or would be) a broad consensus for a wide range of user cat deletions that don't conform to the "babel+demog" pattern. Then transparency argues for making that explicit in a guideline, so as to avoid needless confusion when people have their long-standing categories deleted, or in all innocence create new such, and find it being "voted to be deleted", without any prior indication of why these are Bad Things (short of trawling these archives, or asking a regular UCFDist for a Learned Opinion). On the other hand, if they're not umambiguous, or only have narrow/local consensus, then the process of arriving at a guideline would let some much-needed daylight in, and establish greater consistency in same. Either way: an explicit guideline is much to be preferred over on-going ad hoc deletions.
        • On the specifics: I don't anticipate the need to present any such argument, since I predict the non-creation of any significant numbers of same, and don't much care (either way) if they're created (or if they're all deleted). Why would numerous user-space categories be more of an issue than numerous user pages? It doesn't seem to be made explicit anywhere, but I get the impression that there are subliminal anxieties here about "pollution" of the category namespace, due to the flatness of same. (I note in passing that a dev offered to rework that, many moons ago.) The "prefix" facility doesn't negate a "utility" argument: it just means it doesn't rise to the level of "necessity", it's just "convenience". If all categories had to be justified at the level of "necessity", we'd delete every template-populated category, on the basis of the existence of whatlinkshere. (Including every stub category, and every babel category, of course.) One user has claimed some "utility" to these, which puts it exactly ahead of Category:User en-5 and Category:user de-1, by my book. It's not my position that precedents from creation and non-deletion are good precedents: rather, that they're equally poor as the precedents being cited in the opposite direction. Creation is at the very least a precedent for other, similar creations. Having no stated reasons not to create something, and no stated reasons for deleting them, is, as I say, a recipe for unnecessary grief when they get deleted regardless. Alai 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I understand, you would like to see the precedent somehow codified in the interest of transparency. I don't oppose that if an appropriate page can be found. However, there are relatively few of these types of user categories, so codifying a principle for what looks to be about 2-3 dozen cases a year (judging from UCFD archives) seems rather unnecessary and bureaucratic. Not every single action needs to be supported by accompanying provisions in policies and guidelines. Also, I think you must admit that, rather than being a cold and heartless vote for deletion that leaves those lacking a Learned Opinion in utter and desolate confusion, this discussion provides an explanation of why these are considered Bad ThingsTM. :) I'm not trying to be sarcastic, by the way, ... just poetic. If the explanation is not convincing to someone, then we can discuss any arguments or suggestions they have to offer.
          • As for the second paragraph of your post, I'll comment on one specific point only. Your analogy involving the deletion of all template-populated categories is not a fitting one. Regular template-populated categories can be useful, despite the existence of Special:Whatlinkshere, because they group the pages of numerous different editors. We cannot expect editors interested in collaboration to know about particular userboxes or about the userpages of others; I do not think the same can be said about editors' knowledge of their own userpages. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's relatively few of this particular class, sure, and I'm not suggesting that every possible case that arises needs to be codified in minute detail: general principles that cover the majority of the cases would suffice. But the same applies to almost all of the (proposed) deletions at UCFD: there's no basis in policy or guideline for keeping or for deleting, so it becomes an exercise in voting, and the citing of "precedents" which are at bottom just other exercises in voting, if they too can't be encoded in a systematic fashion in a way that reflects genuine, broad, consensus (or at least a state-of-the-art approximation). A process without a basis in policy isn't non-bureaucratic, it's the worst possible form of bureaucracy (with a smattering of pseudo-democracy, for which see another clause of WP:NOT]). If one wanted to reduce bureaucratic overhead, one might give serious consideration to merging this process back into its parent, on the basis of it having served its initial purpose, rather than continuing to "creep" into areas that are probably well enough left alone. I think the logical place for such guidance is pretty clear: use of user categories should be covered at wikipedia:user page, especially if user categories to be held to a higher standard than other user page content (as seems to regarded as axiomatic by this process's regulars).
            • I don't follow your second point at all. It seems quite clear that neither class of category is strictly necessary, and equally clear that both are convenient, and you don't argue otherwise. Unless there's some sort of appeal to a subliminal "this is costing WP a fortune" argument, or an equally unstated "sanctity of the namespace", I've heard nothing to suggest overriding even marginal such "utility". Alai 03:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are four "general principles" that are applicable to UCFD discussions. First, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox": this covers user categories that serve primarily a soapboxing, advocacy, or advertising purpose. Second, "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site": this covers user categories that have no relevance to the encyclopedia, and exist only as handy user profile notices. Third, editors do not "own" user categories (per WP:OWN): there is no such thing as primary jurisdiction when it comes to user categories. Fourth, the user category system is useful. Something that is useful is worth maintaining, and maintenance requires regularly trimming unneeded clutter. ... The general principles are there, and are explicitly stated or implied in virtually each UCFD nomination.
              • Since I'm uncertan what you mean by "strictly necessarily", I'll try to comment from another vantage point. Both types of categories are convenient, but only one is necessary in the context of fostering encyclopedic collaboration. A category for the pages of a single user is convenient because it helps a user to keep track of their pages; it is, however, not necessary, because the user can do the same via Special:Prefixindex. A multi-user category is convenient because it groups together different editors on the basis of a certain characteristic; it is also necessary because, without the category, editors wouldn't be able to find each other. There can be no comparison between the ease with which a user can find pages in his/her userspace and the ease with which one editor interested in (for instance) economics can find another editor interested in the subject. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want to keep track of user subpages, add this link to your main user page: Mdd user pages. This should probably be documented at Wikipedia:User page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Which I see was already suggested. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian arborists 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G7 (author request), without prejudice to recreation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete- as category creator, sole member, and nominator.Michael J Swassing 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Conservative (Canada) Wikipedians 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservative (Canada) Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Rudy Gulliani support category below, and per ample precedent. ^demon[omg plz] 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent against all support/oppose categories (links to particular discussions are provided here). – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete There are so many examples and precidents to delete that it could be speedied. —ScouterSig 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedents...SkierRMH 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per exhaustive list of precedents. Horologium t-c 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious potential for "divisiveness"; delete. Alai 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many precedents. Doczilla 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Random picture of the day edit

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the random picture of the day 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight 0001 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Random picture of the day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the random picture of the day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Description for the first category is "A category for User:GeorgeMoney/potd.". Don't need a category for this, whatever it is. For the second category, I don't see how it is even possible to contribute to RPOTD, other than uploading pictures to Wikipedia and having them be selected. I don't see how a category for this can facilitate collaboration at all. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. The random potd template is fine, but the categories serve no purpose. Also, this RPOTD is not an actual Wikipedia process/page; it's essentially one user's personal project. While I think the project is commendable, in that it encourages picture uploads, the categories are unneeded fluff. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per nom. The first is populated only by three users, one of whom is retired (User:GeorgeMoney), one of whom does not contribute under that account (User:Patricknoddy), and one who has not edited since July (User:Oreos). The second is populated almost entirely by user talk pages, since the creator of the userbox and category (User:Patricknoddy) spammed a bunch of users who had expressed interest in what appears to be an abandoned project. More than half of the participants in that project have not made edits in six months or more, and at least one has been community-banned (User:nathanrdotcom). Horologium t-c 04:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. They aren't useful. Doczilla 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both though I think the project is cool. But the cats are definitely not good. —ScouterSig 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian's who use The Bat! 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content). Although the category title has been corrected, the recreation is "substantially identical" to the deleted version. To request undeletion, please contact the closing admin in the 27 June 2007 discussion linked below. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian's who use The Bat! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it helpful to categorize people who use a specific e-mail client? I don't think it is. At minimum needs renaming for removal of incorrect apostrophe. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who drive Nissans 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per original author request. VegaDark (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who drive Nissans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does not facilitate collaboration to know who "drives" certain cars or not. Do we want to have one of these for every type of car? If this is kept, we set precedent to do so. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and as per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Maruti Users. Horologium t-c 04:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this precedent for deleting Category:Wikipedians who drive cars and its subcategories, and a consistent precedent for deleting "Wikipedians who own X" categories (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). The ability to drive a vehicle (something that many people can do ... perhaps not very well, but they can do it) is unrelated to the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about the brand of vehicle. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon above. (No need to duplicate the links and reasons again.) - jc37 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Precedent is clear, and this does not facilitate editing collaboration. Doczilla 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As creator of this category, I was unware of precedent over previous issue. Chris 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support Rudy Giuliani for President 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per precedent. ^demon[omg plz] 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support Rudy Giuliani for President (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do we want categories like these? Sets precedent to create one of these for every presidential candidate if kept. VegaDark (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/November_2007&oldid=1148109766"