Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Category:Rouge admins: Clarification requested
Line 854: Line 854:


====Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers====
====Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers====
{{cfd top}} '''rename''' per creator's request.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)<br>
:'''Rename''' [[:Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers]] to [[:Category:Wikipedians who like Power Rangers]] or [[:Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers]] - Since it's not just about a single show, but rather any show that features the Power Rangers as characters, I thought I would offer both options. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:'''Rename''' [[:Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers]] to [[:Category:Wikipedians who like Power Rangers]] or [[:Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers]] - Since it's not just about a single show, but rather any show that features the Power Rangers as characters, I thought I would offer both options. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers]] - as nominator. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers]] - as nominator. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 860: Line 861:
**Those are excellent userboxes, Phoenix. Just a wording issue with the category name, is all.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
**Those are excellent userboxes, Phoenix. Just a wording issue with the category name, is all.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
***Then by all means change it, heck i will change it if someone shows me how.[[User:Phoenix741|Phoenix741]] 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
***Then by all means change it, heck i will change it if someone shows me how.[[User:Phoenix741|Phoenix741]] 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
{{cfd bottom}}


====Category:Wikipedians who are Caians====
====Category:Wikipedians who are Caians====

Revision as of 17:09, 29 November 2006

Template:Cfdu-header

Closing

For instructions on closing debates see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User.

Speedy

November 29

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes

Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes - While I understand that there are those who support and oppose various legal issues, this one was resolved by consensus. See also Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about image use. So I believe whatever purpose it once served, it's now just a category that we should all belong to : ) - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes

Category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes - Sounds like a "not" category. (And rather vague at that.) - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen in this category, it basically says that everything about the user is more than meets the eye, and simply cannot be defined through userboxes. Obviously this is going to be a very controversial topic, as the category consists of thousands of members, but it appears to be mathcruft. Interchangeable delete per nom.--WaltCip 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Category:Wikistress

November 26

Category:Chocoholic Wikipedians

Category:Chocoholic Wikipedians - The userbox that populates this cat: "This user eats chocolate." - Guess that makes it a food cat : ) - jc37 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians

Category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians - someone mentioned clothing categories below : ) - jc37 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reclusive Wikipedians

Category:Reclusive Wikipedians - Wikipedians who hide away from the world for various reasons. - jc37 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who respect the beliefs of others

Category:Wikipedians who respect the beliefs of others - I presume this includes everyone? : ) - jc37 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politically incorrect Wikipedians

Category:Politically incorrect Wikipedians - The userbox should be enough. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one at least states a position that's vaguely political. I guess it's technically a "not" category, but it's okay with me.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't see how anything more than the userbox is "useful". - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. Herostratus 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for religious reasons

Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for religious reasons - Duplicative of Category:Wikipedians by religion. - jc37 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oprahist Wikipedians

Category:Oprahist Wikipedians - This is populated by this userbox. It's obviously not an actual religion. On this page (the category's only member, which is a storage gallery), it's listed under "religious humor". - jc37 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are androgynous when online

Category:Wikipedians who are androgynous when online - Essentially: "People who have a pronoun preference, or a lack thereof, when online" - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see a need for a category in this case. - jc37 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who want iPods

Category:Wikipedians who want iPods - Similar to the wanting cats or dogs below. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with whatever the liking iPods category is. No collaboration value from this alone. -Amarkov blahedits 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into category:Wikipedians who use iPods. If someone in this category hasn't ever used an iPod, well, they can delete themselves from it.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mike above. NikoSilver 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merging with the category of iPod users would just be silly. Read the userbox: "This user does not have an iPod, but wants one". Deleting the category is OK, I suppose, but merging it with a totally different, opposing category is silly. — Gary Kirk // talk! 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation

Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation - Believe it or not, this is a food category (well, drink, anyway). - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's actually a fairly big organization of people, so even though it's a food category, it meets the definitions of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a bit tipsy, but the presence of such things as Scarborough Country or Savage Nation permits this category's usage.--WaltCip 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is that different than a category of: 'Wikipedians who drink alcohol"? Except it's more focused? I'd bet that there are even more people that eat apples (or eat at McDonald's) than members of the rogue nation, but we've disallowed those... And how about the members of the Burger King's kids club? : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats - Duplicates Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More useful than the Wikipedia page is, (or would be if properly populated) and corresponds with the admin category. --tjstrf talk 11:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment: Easier for navigation and automatically maintainable. We wouldn't delete Category:Wikipedia administrators, would we? Duja► 11:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I like the idea, it's not being used, and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats also makes clear about how active they are as well, rather than just a big list. Besides, this duplicates a special page as well (Special:Listusers). - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Listusers has a combo? Learn something new every day... I'll change my mind, at least for a while. Duja► 12:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Categories have advantages over lists, and in fact, they are generally preferred over them. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, actually. See WP:CLS. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with that guideline, and I still think that this is a case where a category is appropriate. Since it will appear on the user's userpage, anyone looking at the user can simply click on the link if they need to find other bureaucrats rather than having to try to find the list (which they may not even know exists). -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Keep per others.--WaltCip 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though you're supporting the nom, I have to ask... Did you check out the category? : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Category:Wikipedia administrators. -- nae'blis 17:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful to know who the 'crats are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, I don't disagree that " it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find". - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation about how to find the special page to the category (it doesn't seem to have a URL for 'crats specifically). Wow, that category needs populating. --ais523 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Nod, hence my comments above : ) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators

Category:Wikipedia administrators - The admins by nationality subcats can be merely recategorised as subcats of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. Delete the parent cat and all its members as a duplication of Special:Listusers and Wikipedia:List of Administrators. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one's really useful, and delightfully simple in its name.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, but many users don't use the "Special" feature. For those who use the category system, this allows users to find administrators that want to list themselves there.--Mike Selinker 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Special:Listusers isn't well known, and categories have advantages over lists, so this is better than Wikipedia:List of Administrators. The admins by nationality subcats are fine, but I still think it's good to have all of the admins listed in a single place. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong and Very Speedy Keep - It would be shame for us non-administrators to have it deleted. Just the other day I was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. This catgory isn't just showcase for some of the best Wikipedians and a source for inspiration, it is also a extremely good platform to ask for help, often better than the Pump. Please, try and delete a hundred thousand other ridiculous, confusing or useless categories. Leave this one out. I'd rather propose to make it more comprehensive and put all admins to it. - 06:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    As stated in the nomination, the "admins by nationality/ethnicity" sub-categories would be Kept, I am merely suggesting that the umbrella category be deleted as a duplication. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easy one-click to a useful list. Gets a newbie there fast when needed. Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, logical supercat. -- nae'blis 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct/correct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. (if anything, I think I'd argue for deletion of the list rather than the category) ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned under Bureaucrats, above: "Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below." - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wannabe rouge admins

Category:Wannabe rouge admins - These get funnier and funnier : ) - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete, listify if wanted. - as nominator. - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator . Well, the intention was to add an additional level of irony; the parent category survived the CfD so I see no particular reason to delete this as well. (Not that I'd mind too much, basically this is a question of how much messy humor we're ready to tolerate). Duja► 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'm someone who would champion the idea that we should preserve humour on Wikipedia : ) - However, I think in this case it would be much better as a List rather than a category. Otherwise, we're opening ourselves up to having categories of humourous categories, and I don't think that that would be a good idea. - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mentioned it, it actually struck me as an excellent idea . Now seriously, is there a policy on user categories? We seem to be discussing on I like it/I dislike it level. Most of the ones that you're now putting under scrutiny were tolerated so far as "no big deal" or "they do no harm"; I realize that is not the approach we take in article space, but I'm fairly undecided as to what set of rules should apply to UCs as well. Duja► 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My guidelines are based on a condensation of User:Cswrye's guideline for user categories. Here's the rule I use: A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful because of the utility of the category nominated below.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify "utility"? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides humour value, what's the usefulness? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I can't think of any. The Rouge admin category should stay, but I can't justify this one. Delete.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See discussion below. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's rouge, then there's wannabe rouge which just kills it. --Majorly (Talk) 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like Duja's category.--Aldux 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above argument is the same butchered "Keep it because I like it!" argument used by the Esperanzan police. There's no need for vague humor on a website that attempts to provide integral information.--WaltCip 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rouge admins

Category:Rouge admins - It's humour, but since there is an associated humour page: Wikipedia:Rouge admin, the category should probably go. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete, listify if wanted. - as nominator. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and is a part of Wikipedians by philosophy. I'd also like to mention that user categories are far more useful than user lists because they don't have problems with going out of date, so listify is not imo a valid alternative. --tjstrf talk 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tjstrf. Oh no, the cabal can't possibly let you do that; we'll all climb the Reichstag if this gets deleted. Duja► 11:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment in the nom directly above. : ) - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was on a CfD before (like about everything related with WP:ROUGE)? Duja► 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to Rouge users. NikoSilver 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely a useful group category. (Though I'd love it if they'd support a rename to category:Wikipedians in the Rouge admins.)--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides humour value, what's the usefulness? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People would like to know who are the members of the cabal. Besides, why do you seek for usefulness besides humor value? Duja► 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It adds nothing that a simple list couldn't do better; but why do we need a list? surely all admins are rouge admins by definition? Abtract 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not true, see below... many admins are very process centric and not at all willing to Do the Right Thing if it requires IAR. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I like Wikipedia:Rouge admin; it's funny, and it makes a good point. However, I fail to see how a category adds to that humor or helps make a point. If it's important for an admin to be list him- or herself as a Rouge admin, perhaps they should consider creating a list on the article itself. That may even be more effective in that it would let people who visit the page immediatly see who the Rouge admins are. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The easy fix there is to just have a link to the category, described as a way to see who is in it, on that page. No need for a list. The case that a list is better than a category in this instance has not been made. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I {{sofixit}}-ed it. :) it's linked now. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a list isn't better than a category. They're both pointless in this case since the page is about humor anyway. At least with a list, everything is kept in one place, and it avoids having to go to multiple pages to catch the humor. Also, far too many humor categories get created, and it doesn't reflect well (and can even be perceived as hypocritical) to delete them while letting admin keep their humor category. Besides, I've chosen to rebel against the cabal, and I'm taking it down one rouge admin at a time! :-) —Cswrye 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT or just trying to be funny? This category is not *just* humor, which point seems to be lost on some. This is a useful category, as are many categories that identify some subset of admins. (As before, consider Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles... very useful as a category, less useful as a list and would be more work to maintain) 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) .
Please, settle down! I thought it was obvious that the last line was just humor, but I really meant the rest of it. I'm starting to understand the point you've been making below that this distinguishes admins who focus more on ignoring all rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia from those who focus more on following proper process. That does make sense to me, and I'm on the verge of changing my vote to "keep". However, I do have a question. How does the category relate to Wikipedia:Rouge admins? The point that the humor page makes is that admins follow policy and consensus even though many users complain about them suppressing The Truth™, which doesn't have anything to do with WP:IAR. By the way, this doesn't mean that I've given in to the cabal. —Cswrye 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reasoning how this category harms Wikipedia.  Grue  09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from being an essential part of Wikipedia culture, there's something quite serious hidden behind this "humorous" category; it's made clear in WP:ROUGE. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you have my curiosity peaked. I've re-read that article, and I don't see any purpose for the category, in that article, serious or otherwise. What am I missing? - jc37 15:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid category for admins with a broad interpretation of WP:IAR, if humorous. -Amarkov blahedits 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless fun. --Majorly (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duja.--Grand Slam 7 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the history of Wikipedia. Being placed in the category is part of the gag....Promotes a whistle while you work attitude. --FloNight 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, is it useful to know who considers themselves (or is considered by their peers) a Rouge admin? I feel it is. Humor stripped aside, admins in this category have stated explicitly they are willing to Ignore all rules and processes, as needed, for the good of the encyclopedia. Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important. Whether you agree with one view or the other, surely you would agree there is a distinction and it is a distinction with a difference. Knowing who is in which camp is not in and of itself divisive, so there is indeed encyclopedic value and use in knowing who is ROUGE. Second, then, given that there is value in knowing this, is it better to have a category or a list? Consider that we have Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles as a category... On the other hand we have Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks as a list. I think rather than moving categories to lists (in general not the way we do things, lists are inferior to categories) we ought to be moving current lists to categories. Third, this has been brought up before... Therefore Keep. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part has nothing to do with this discussion (though I thought it was a nice overview, and we should link to it should anyone attempt to delete the article), since in no way does this nomination suggest that the article (or any associated userboxes) be removed. I disagree with your comments about lists and categories (See WP:CLS, as I've noted at your other similar comments). Each has their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do appreciate that you did understand that this is about the grouping, which apparently has been confused by several people. Other than FLoNight's comment above, I haven't heard a single reason why the category should be kept. And her rationale is concerning because that means it's a category that you're placed in by other Wikipedians (not everyone has the same sense of humour). My thoughts on this are in total agreement with what User:Cswrye summed up above.- jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list if you want it to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. I also note that your opening argument is that because this is humor it should not be a category. That's a nonsequiteur that the first part of my response addresses, so it's not true that "The first part has nothing to do with this discussion" as you state. Note that you also state, above "I don't see any purpose" and I've refuted that as well. Are you ready to concede that either a categeory or a list is needed, and that having neither would be less optimal than where we are now? If so we can stick to why a category is better in this instance, but if not, we need to flatten the issue of why one or the other IS a good thing to have first. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't see a need even for a list. I was merely saying I wouldn't oppose one, if wanted. There are many humour pages in project space, and this is/would be just one more. As I believe I've said repeatedly, I just don't see the need for a group for this. WHat i've yet to see in your responses is a reason to keep besides "because I want it kept" and "because categories are better than lists". If that's the sum total of your position, that's fine. Whether I agree with it or not, it's a valid enough perspective. But what I'm looking for is a tangible use. If it's only because it's admins who support WP:IAR, then the category gets deleted, because we all should follow the WP:5P. That includes interpreting WP:IAR. So far I haven't seen anything even close to usefulness as a category, except as a userpage notification. And whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant. To reiterate: Give me something of substance. Otherwise, this is no different than: "Category:Admins who support Wikipedians being WP:CIVIL". (Which would also be deleted, for the same, obvious reasons.) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you're reading what I am saying here. "Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important" is a pretty clear justification for the existance of this category. You can argue that all admins should be identical, but they are not. We have some people who are very Willy-Wonka (very process centric) and some people who are very Red Rider (very IAR centric). Unless you're prepared to demand uniformity, knowing who is who is goodness. So a list or a category is a good thing to have. Don't you agree? If not, why not? And... categories are better than lists in this particular usage as already explained. QED. (no personal preference given in this recap of my argument whatever) ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clear up a point... Any admin put in this category is going to understand the category. Admins in this category are not Wimps... They can stay in it or remove themselves as they desire. That is understood. IMO, you are looking for a solution to a problem where none exists by deleting this category. FloNight 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand your perspective on this. And it's "possible" that you're misreading my overall intention, since we are (as we often do in XfD) getting bogged down in details : ) - Read my latest response to Lar, directly above, and perhaps that will clarify. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duja - don't try defying the CABAL, or else... ;-)--Aldux 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come now, what possible aid in collaboration can we get from this? "Humor." This category simply does not pass the laugh test.--WaltCip 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry WaltCip that you do not Get It. But this category is an important aid to collaboration. I observed the recent induction of an admin into the category. I can assure you that something good happened for this person and Wikipedia that day. This type of humorous interaction between users is part of the culture of Wikipedia. We need to Make More positive interactions between users Not Delete aids to our existing ones. --FloNight 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, I don't think that the category is needed for this. The same effects could be "effected" by placing any sort of notice on the user's pages (userbox or otherwise). It would seem to me to achieve the same effect, without the need for a category. However, can you explain further? Perhaps I am missing something. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators

Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators - Another "not" category. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand why someone wouldn't (it took a long time for me to agree to become one), but it's not something I'd declare.--Mike Selinker 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's their decision what they declare. Not allowing someone the option of saying no seems a little like restricting speech. Blast 11.24.06 0149 (UTC -5)
    They're still allowed the userbox, or userpage statement, We're just removing the category. (At this point, does anyone else think that we should specifically and distinctly specify this at the top of this page?) - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc37 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discount keeps - The "NOT" system for listing categories states that there's no point in listing categories that say such things as "Wikipedians who don't have third arms", as we have discussed in the previous CfDs. Also, ad infinitum, this could include an infinite number of people in Wikipedia. The arguments provided for the keeps are unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedians who are content to remain rank-and-file editors. Takes the bitter taste of not out of it. It's a useful category.  Erielhonan  22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for those interested in retaining their "user" privileges. -- nae'blis 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not categories such as "Wikipedians who do not like cheese" are stupid, as not liking cheese implies absolutely nothing in the affirmative. Not wanting to be an administrator does imply affirmative statements. -Amarkov blahedits 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful category that can help avoid wasted efforts asking people if they want to be nominated. --Majorly (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think that the userbox which populates this category is enough? - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but no reason for deletion. --Majorly (Talk) 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it can be (a reason for deletion). The Wikipedian categories are essentially about fostering collaboration. This category is about division ("I don't want"). Whether it's just a genuine lack of interest, or a sincere statement about how they feel about admins or adminship, doesn't really matter... The category in no way helps towards collaboration, promotes or at least decalares a division. Hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think others have made the case that it does help toward collaboration. Users in this category don't want to be harassed about becoming admins, they just want to edit. That does not promote division, it helps avoid giving needless offense. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a notice on a userpage does that. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful category. Rename if you like but knowing who does not want to be an admin is useful, and categories are more useful than lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and make the case that in this case a list is better, then. WP:CLS isn't policy last I checked, and maybe it needs some work to boot, in reading it over I found a fair bit to disagree with. IF that case is valid, and you let us know when you've populated such a list and publicised to the users that are in this category that there is a list and they need to maintain their membership in it, I'll change my thinking, in this case. But you haven't made the case that a list is better than a category in this case yet that I can see. By default, the category is a better choice (c.f. the MANY AfD's against lists that merely say "category exists" as their argument for deleting the list, which then carries and the list is deleted). Also, are you conceding there's a need for either a list or a category by saying a list is better? Or are you doing the defense in depth of "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" that lawyers use? ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" - I may have to quote you... That made me laugh out loud : ) - Oh and I've responded to this same line of questioning above in the other admin nominations, though I suppose I can repeat it here (again)if you would like. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category name does not imply "bitterness" or anything of the sort. There are plenty of users who probably do not want the weight of admin responsibility, not out of bitterness, but just because that's who they are. In fact, at least at the moment, I consider myself one of those people. Even if I could become an admin, I wouldn't want to. The category is both useful and non-divisive. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a grouping of wikipedians who express that choice, useful? (They still can declare that choice through a comment on their talk page, or a userbox, etc.) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are nice and visible at the very bottom of a user page. Talk page messages and userboxes get overlooked. That's how it is useful ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above: "whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant." And for that matter, nothing from stopping you from placing such a link at the bottom of your userpage as well. If the only arguement is "because it's a userpage notice", then my comment is "Strong Delete", because categories shouldn't be used only for that purpose. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have with that argument (and, yes, you do seem to be using the lawyerly defense in depth here, when one argument is refuted, you pop up with another one) is that ANYTHING can be done a different way. that something CAN be done a different way does not mean that it SHOULD be done. Having a representation category at the very bottom of your userpage is a useful attribute that cannot be achieved any other way. You can put it CLOSE to the bottom, but not IN the category section. Is this the strongest argument in favour? no. But it's one you cannot counter by saying "you can achieve it another way". For if that were true, we could well delete every template. Everything a template achieves CAN be done another way. And that's an absurd idea, isn't it? For much ease of use results from using templates... ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lawyerly defense"? Apparently I see this discussion differently than you do. I think I've stated my reasons for the nomination rather clearly by now. What you apprently see as "lawyerly defense", I see as "responding to your comments". Or in other words, "discussing" : ) - And it isn't because it can "be done another way", it's because we shouldn't merely use categories as notices. A page link is enough. Categories are groupings, which also act as links to those groupings. As I said, if your "arguement" (your word) is that you want the category kept because you see it useful as a "page link", then my answer is "Strong and Speedy Delete". - jc37 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories: Eventualist Wikipedians | Inclusionist Wikipedians | Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion | Structurist Wikipedians | WikiProject Comics members | WikiProject Greyhawk participants | WikiProject Middle-earth participants | Wikipedians who read Tolkien | WikiProject Star Wars members | Wikipedians who participate in the Comics Collaboration of the Month | Wikipedians who participate in the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week are the categories I see at the bottom of your user page. That's a shedful. Aren't all those categories things that you could just as easily note via a comment? Could they all be lists instead? Why did you add yourself to those categories? So that people could find you easily, right? Or was it some other reason? Whatever reason you give, applies here too (and to all the other categories you've nommed), once it is shown they are useful distinctions to make. What I mean when I say Lawyerly defense is that when I show that it's a useful distinction, you argue that it doesn't need to be a category, and when I show why it needs to be a category, you argue that it isn't a useful distinction. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's take those each, step by step:
    • The "-ist" categories - Among several other things, these are part of a media wiki structure. See: m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. They also may be used as a part of scientific research. (See m:Wikiresearch.) So I think there is a good chance that they pass the bar as "useful".
    • The WikiProject participants/members are very clearly an awesome example of usefulness by collaboration. As are the "Collaboration of the Week/Month".
    • "...who read Tolkien" - The various "Wikipedian by interest" categories follow the same pattern. it's a grouping of people who are interested in a topic, therefore, one may presume that they may know "something" about that topic, and as such should be helpful in collaboration.
    • The "Wikipedians who support..." some Wikipedian cause or issue - These are useful as groupings so that those who are discussing the issue , or in the process of writing up an essay/guideline/whatever on the issue, may find others who are also interested in the issue, and just like the other "Wikipedians by interest" categories, we presume that such people should have at least some modicum of knowledge (and of course, interest) about said topic, and thus may also be interested in collaboration.
    The point to them all, is that there is a point to the grouping: useful collaboration of some type. So how does this category qualify? It's actually a category of "Wikipedians who would rather not collaborate as administrators". Which is perfectly fine, except that there is no need for the grouping. Wikipedian categories should exist to be a notice and grouping. As I mentioned above, if it's "notice only", then I suggest delete, since a "notice" is all that's needed. - jc37 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was just about to ask a user whether s/he wanted to be an admin sometime, and found this cat at the bottom of their page. Seems useful enough, and not everybody likes userboxes. riana_dzasta 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One can transclude, link, or even just type a comment on a userpage without the need for a userbox. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

Note to closer - The following discussions (from/of/on/born in) should probably all be read in order to determine concensus. Comments regarding each have been posted at times in only one or the other of the discussions. (I suppose I should have made this a single nomination, my apologies) - jc37 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia

Category:Wikipedians born in Glasgow

Category:Wikipedians born in Iowa

Category:Wikipedians born in Spokane

Category:Wikipedians born in Texas

Delete all or Rename, removing the word "born", to match other location categories. Otherwise, we'll eventually have (at least) two locations for every wikipedian: Where they were born, and where they live now. (I'm choosing to avoid the "from" confusion). - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting since I relisted the related "from" discussion below. - jc37 12:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment - I'm still on the fence about which way to go, so waiting to decide for now. - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and make this the standard. The Texans went crazy when I nominated their category last time, and this was the compromise. I think you can either be "in" some place, or you can be "born in" some place, but more gradation makes it problematic.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being "born in" somewhere seems a sufficiently specific (i.e. viable) category, as I guess it's possible to be born in one place, brought up somewhere else (be "from" somewhere else...?) and now live in a third place (be "in" a third place). So if Albert Einstein were a Wikipedian, I guess he could choose to sport all three kinds of categories: Wikipedians born in Germany, Wikipedians from Switzerland and Wikipedians in the United States. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds a bit like category creep : ) - At the very least, the "born in" categories should be merged to the "from" categories. jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In mainspace I guess it might be category creep, but as these are categories folk can use to describe themselves, they might want the option to use any and all three... David (talk) 04:17, November 25, 2006 (UTC)
    This is the exact problem which lead to creation of Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence. To give a concrete example, I was neither born in Kentucky, nor do I live there now, but I did live there for more than 20 years, and I identify strongly with the state, and contribute to a number of Kentucky articles. I would be excluded from a "born in" or "lives in category" -- do those categories really serve more purpose than simply saying "Texan," "Kentuckian," "Iowan," (or the less-defined "from")etc.? Cmadler 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, these were all of the "born in" categories. Is this a trend we want to start? Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is one of those instances where a category could require a minimum number of members to be viable, e.g. if someone created the category Wikipedians from the Mojave phone booth but after N weeks/months it had less than (say) five members, then it would be deleted. (Maybe not feasible, probably would require a bot, ...)  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That means that all of the above would be deleted except texas. Also, these could all be renamed "from" and still be accurate (though possibly less "precise"). However, for collaboration purposes, I don't think we need to differentiate between "born in" and "from". The userbox obviously may be either or both, but there should only be a single category, if any. Also noting that "in" could apply to anyone who travels. ("Today I'm in Germany, and tomorrow I'm in France"). Maybe "from" should be the standard for all? - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Let's get through this, then make a broad proposal that all these locational categories become "from."--Mike Selinker 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that "from" is or would be used to mean "where I grew up", while "in" is or would be used to mean "where my home is now (even if I travel a great deal, etc)". Maybe a survey somewhere to see if any consensus over using any or all the following might clarify folks' wishes regarding their self-description:

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type Family
Handles wiki
 table code?†
 Responsive/
Mobile suited 		Start template Column divider End template
Float "col-float" Yes Yes {{col-float}} {{col-float-break}} {{col-float-end}}
"columns-start" Yes Yes {{columns-start}} {{column}} {{columns-end}}
Columns "div col" Yes Yes {{div col}} – {{div col end}}
"columns-list" No Yes {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) – –
Flexbox "flex columns" No Yes {{flex columns}} – –
Table "col" Yes No {{col-begin}},
{{col-begin-fixed}} or
{{col-begin-small}} 		{{col-break}} or
{{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} 		{{col-end}}

† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead. Regards, David (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idle thought: As I look at Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, the introduction would seem to suggest that these should be included in those categories, with the format: <ethnicity/nationality>-ian Wikipedians. - jc37 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle. I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question.  Erielhonan  22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sensitive area. Texans appear not to take kindly to changes either. NilssonDenver 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island - This one should also be decided with the "from" categories below. - jc37 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey - This one should be decided with the "from" categories directly below. (Please respond there : ) - jc37 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Argentina

Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge

Category:Wikipedians from Eritrea

Category:Wikipedians from Garneau

Category:Wikipedians from Kerala

Category:Wikipedians from Massachusetts

Category:Wikipedians from Queensland

Category:Wikipedians from Setúbal

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union

Delete all or Rename, changing "from" to "in", per consistency. (I guess I wasn't able to avoid "from", per "born" below : ) - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting for further discussion, and to remove any concerns due to tag removal - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment - as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these. - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by location --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "born in" versions. See below.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't even think about deleting this category. I have removed the category for deletion link from the article. I am highly insulted that you would discriminate against someone who wishes to express themselves as from the european union. You do not need to be born in the european union to be part of the european union. I could not believe it when I saw the link, I thought it was vandalism. NilssonDenver 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no discrimination here. The nomination is just one of many designed to bring the category system into some sort of consistency. Please do not accuse people of biases they do not have.--Mike Selinker 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't {{prod}}. I'll be re-adding the tag, so that people can find this discussion. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From" indicates to me a place of origin but not necessarily where the person now lives, whereas "in" indicates the opposite (i.e. the place where the person now lives but did not necessarily originate). So I guess you could be a "Wikipedian from X" and a "Wikipedian in Y", i.e. both types of category viable...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, this is all of the "from location" categories. Is this a trend we want to start? Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be fine with deleting them all as well.--Mike Selinker 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me deleting Wikipedians from the European Union is racist and discriminatory and I will fight this on these grounds. That is how strongly I fell about it. I will remove the link again in 24 hours if no one else places a more appropriate discussion category link and will keep removing the deletion link. There must be a better way of indicating a discussion on renaming a category is proposed but deletion I will continue to object to for this category. I am european and I will not be categorised as anything else. You may not understand the depth of feeling I have on this subject and I understand you may be trying to make wikipedia more efficient and/or readable but you have touched on a nerve. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by NilssonDenver (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). - jc37 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle. I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question.  Erielhonan  22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing peoples right to express the nationality and/or where they live. You cannot be allowed to categorise somebody to suit your needs. I am furious with this. I am from the european union. My passport tells me I am.

If you tell the scottish wikipedians who are proud to be scottish that you want to remove their scottishness from wikipedia I know you will have a fight on your hands. I am from the european union, if I move to the USA am I now categorised as North American. Stop now what you are doing. You have chosen without discussion on the Wikipedians from european union category page to propose deletion. You are the one trying to prove a point of trying to recategorise to suit what you want. I am putting back what is supported by those people who are proud to be wikipedians from the european union.

If you take on other nationalities you will get the same anger, that someone would just change/remove or delete their expression of nationality or anything else they wish to express themselves by.

People can be living in, born in, proud to be part of a country, leave well alone. I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to prevent people who freely contribute to this site being categorised to suit an index. A user can classify themselves in many ways. You can not be permitted to prevent users to express themselves.

If more categories are needed than let them be added. Who decides if a category is suitable or not? If I am a pipe smoking, scottish nationalist, living in australia I want to be categorised that way. Until someone comes up with the perfect indexing system leave it as it is.

Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). So I am restoring the category to where it was before you interfered without any discussion. NilssonDenver 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to whom is this comment directed? The unsigned EU Scot? -  Erielhonan  00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume to me, since it's a near duplicate of something I said above. - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to be clear about this: Do not delete the tag. I will roll back any attempt to circumvent the discussion. Civilly express whatever opinions you want here, but do not attempt to hide the discussion from others.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok let us be civil. jc37 and Mike Selinker On what grounds will you delete Category:Wikipedians from the European Union. On what grounds will you delete any category that expresses a place born, lived in or from.
  • You started a deletion process without an idea as to how it should end. You were uncertain yet you felt the need to mark a category for deletion.
  • "as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these." - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me this is vandalism. If I feel some category does not feel right, can I go right along mark a page for deletion without giving a reason or suggestion. Talk first, come up with suggestions, then act would be a polite way to do things.
  • Lets take Scotland as an example. There are Category:Scottish Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Scotland categories. Category 1 does not mean you have to be living in Scotland, but you are scottish. Category 2 are wikipedians living in but not necessarily from Scotland. What will yo do with these categories?
  • I advise that you do not try and reclassify these users as they are expressing themselves in different ways. Some may even be expressing both. As  Erielhonan  wrote Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle. I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question.
  • You can tidy up indexes but you must not stop freedom of expression.
  • I would suggest that you refrain from marking a category for deletion. Renaming or moving may not bring out as strong a response as mine, but when it comes to country, nationality, location you will have a battle without support from the entire wikipedia community.
  • I was born in, I am living in, I hold a passport from. Some may aspire to be, working in, passing through, refugee from. If you want change on this area, start at the top with a working group. Don't pick on particular categories because they don't fit someones index. Change in this area would require great reorganisation. Is this a project worth pursuing. This is the question you should put out there?
  • Now we have a category being discussed for deletion and a precedent being set that will affect all categories. My suggestion is stop right now, find an area to discuss nationalities and location, and if the wikipedians want change let them decide if nationalities or locations or any description should be limited or expanded. I again suggest you stop right now as this is too sensitive an area to mess with. Come with ideas before staring a deletion process and remove the category deletion from Category:Wikipedians from the European Union NilssonDenver 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I mean this in no way disrespectful, but I think much of your concern above is due to a misunderstanding of Categories fordiscussion. Just because someonething is labelled for deletion, doesn't mean that that is the only possible outcome. I am limited by only being able to place one tag, and to place the "renaming" tag requires a target for the rename. In this case, I had no idea, and "deletion" was also an option. therefore, the obvious solution was to tag it as a "deletion", and when someone comes here for the discussion they will be able to see the options, and perhaps even suggest some of their own. In all, please assume good faith. Believe it or not, if you'll take a moment to check out my userpage, I tend towards inclusionism (Wikipedia is not paper), and eventualism. So I always do a bit of a double-take when someone suggests that I am a deletionist : ) - I just like orderly organisation, and I believe that developing naming conventions/standards is helpful for everyone. I just don't think that having 3 or more different ways to say something about where a wikipedian is "from" is helpful. It tends to spread them across categories, rather than unify them for ease of navigation/finding. I hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 11:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messing with nationalism is dangerous. How people express themselves whether they are proud to be living in the European Union or from the European Union you cannot take away that right. To box someone in under a category to suit an index is asking for trouble. If you delete the European Union category then how will I express my relationship with the European Union. It still annoys me that you would place this category up for discussion without proper thought as to what should happen with this category.
Are you supporting this category's deletion? Who decides now where this discussion ends? I support both living in the European Union and from the European Union and I will not prevent any user from declaring their beliefs as long it is non offensive and then offensiveness is another policy decision for a working group.
So please answer my question, when does this end? Will the right to declare yourself as Wikipedians living in the European Union and Wikipedians from the European Union be removed. If you are an inclusionist you cannot remove the right to express onesself because you want a nice tidy index.
Note I picked Scotland as an example as there is a proud Scottish Wikipedian who is a Wikipedian from the European union, living in England whose right to express this information will be removed. And I am telling you now, you don't want to mess with the Scottish Wikipedians both from and living in categories :-)
So to conclude 1. No deletion; 2. Have at least 2 categories for the European Union, living in and from the; 3. Stay away from users national declarations; 4. If you feel that the current indexes are too unorganised, work through the process of getting wikipedia policy set, however that is done; 5. Decide when this discussion will run its course. NilssonDenver 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to speak to Nilsson's point about freedom of expression. While it is one of our alienable rights as citizens, it is irrelevant to this discussion. The category system, and indeed all of the userpage activities on Wikipedia, fall under the policy Wikipedia is not webspace. If a user wants to express himself fully, that's what webpages are for. Here we are trying to decide what the basis for a collaborative category system is. In this particular case, we are faced with five different and somewhat overlapping structures which may never be easy to rationalize into a smaller group. If so, that's fine; we'll end up with "in" and "from" and "born in" categories until another group (possibly the proposed workgroup) comes along to straighten it out. But let's avoid the indiscriminate labels of people being racist or discriminatory or stifling of expression. This discussion will run its course when the time runs out on the nomination in a few days, which will only get extended if someone decides to delete the tag yet again. And especially, Nilsson, regardless of how annoyed you are, you need to lay off the threats of who we "don't want to mess with," because that more than anything else will lead to your own freedom of expression being stifled with a block. I hope we're clear on this.--Mike Selinker 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please remember that this is a discussion. It doesn't mean that any categories automatically get deleted. In fact, the nomination mentioned the possiblity of a renaming. The appearance of this group of categories was just to try to get consensus on their merits and how they can best benefit Wikipedia. No person or group was being attacked by this nomination. The existence of these categories, as well as their name, depends on what consensus determines is best for collaboration, because that is ultimately why user categories exist. —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a now more concilatory mindset and apologetic demenour and having read around about wikipedia policy here are my thoughts expressed calmly :-)
While categories may have been designed for a particular use, rightly or wrongly, they are used as items by a user to express themselves. Their user pages are not enough. If there was an original policy on user categories it has not been enforced and to enforce it now will, as I have shown, cause friction between those who wish to apply the policy as they believe it was originally envisaged and those who see it differently.
WP:NOT#WEBSPACE"The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration" this is wikipedia policy. It can be argued that placing a category showing your location from or in would help collaboration as you can find users local to you or users in an area you wish to examine, combined with other user categories can narrow your search.
WP:UC Wikipedia:User categorization is not considered a guideline on Wikipedia at this stage.
User Categories seems to be the one that evolved beyond that of what its original creators taught it might become and is now so well established as an expression of many things, to remove it will be to confuse users understanding of what it is. There appears to me to be no definitive policy on user categories and while a project has been started it still has no "official" status. If a user page is to help collaboration on wikipedia, a huge cleanup would be required as user pages I have seen have many references that I cannot see how they would help with collaboration.
As much as Wikipedia is suppose not to be a social network it has the traits of a social network. We all collaborate on this project, we communicate, we add data and create information for articles, we discuss, we argue, we fight, we sulk, we yell and we find expression on our user page. Wikipedia is alive. Its users have given it life and it is evolving. It may be outgrowing its software limitations and cannot cope easily with many indices (indexes). To standardise wording, such as every category must start with "Wikipedians" would help efficiency, to remove categories would be to take the heart from Wikipedia, and remove the diversity that users express themselves by. I came to wikipedia to add my knowledge freely and have stayed because of the variety of users and contributions, the diversity of expressions and I have watched it grow exponentially.
Effective collaboration are words used in Wikipedia policy, but how now do you define effective collaboration. 1,500,000 articles, I don't know how many users, but the system appears to be working. Wikipedia is alive and expressing itself in so many ways. I hope it does not become strangled by efficiency, organised it should be, restrictive it should never be. NilssonDenver 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See now, that's a fine argument. I can't say I disagree with any of that. Thanks for changing your tone rather than your tune.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General agreement with MS directly above - And you listed some good descriptions as to why we do have location-based user categories. And, personally, I don't believe that we should delete the truely location-based categories, either. However, the system needs clean-up. (To use a metaphor, the bush needs pruning in order to foster healthy growth.) So, if we accept that location-based categories are justifiable, two things then yet need addressing in this case: Do we need a category to group such Wikipedians, rather than just a userbox or other userpage notice (I believe so, in this case); and how should such groupings (and groups of groupings) be named, in working towards a standardisation in naming. I believe that the categories should be unified as much as possible, while yet following precision, to help unify such groupings, for easier navigation/searches. (etc etc etc.) - jc37 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Delete or Rename to Category:Wikipedian Vast Right Wing Conspiracy members. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with their own political ideals

Category:Wikipedians with their own political ideals - "This category is for Wikipedians who follow only their own political ideals (ones invented by themselves or someone they know that are not mainstream) - they do not abide by any certain party's beliefs." - Userbox should be enough. I don't see usefulness as a category. (Essentially a "not" category.) - jc37 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Independent Wikipedians. If your belief is that you are not independent, well, I don't have a category for that. :^) --Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Delete per nom. - People may have their own political ideals, but in the end, they're still sheep.--WaltCip 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Independent Wikipedians" gives no indication that the category is about politics, and the userbox should be sufficient for these free-thinkers. :) -- nae'blis 04:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence

Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence - (Wikipedians who like "The South".) Usefulness as a category? Only member is category creator. - jc37 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, no revenge categories.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an individual with an affinity toward the South, but who doesn't live there nor who has any hint of affection toward Confederate sympathies, I can say that Southern affinity transcends origin, politics, etc. Southern culture is as much about charming accents, biscuits and gravy, and being neighborly as it is about anything else.  Erielhonan  21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fine. But how does this provide a means for collaboration? (And remember, they still retain the userbox/userpage notice stating their belief.) - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of articles about the South to edit. While I would recommend that people who want to ID as collaborators join a WikiProject, not everyone will. Maybe a compromise would be to blast a message to category members to "Join [related WikiProject] if you are interested in collaboration, because this affinity-group category is going to be deleted in [30 or so] days." Rather than suddenly deleting the locale- and region-based affinity groups without any forewarning or option. Erielhonan (talk • contribs) 22:09, May 19, 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no argument with the deletion of this category IF someone can point out an alternate similar category. The "United States Southern Wikipedians" cat was deleted, which I do not argue with, except that the only remaining option was for Wikipedians in the US South. I see that we now have Category:Wikipedians interested in a region and perhaps the cat in question could be moved to "Wikipedians interested in the US South"? Cmadler 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well first, I think Category:Wikipedians interested in a region probably needs a bit of cleanup. But that said, how about: Category:Wikipedians interested in the Southern United States - per Southern United States. - jc37 13:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Solid.--Mike Selinker 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So does that mean that you (Mike Selinker) think I should change my "vote" above? (And for that matter, you and yours as well?) I don't mind the rename, but I am leaning toward delete. But further comment will likely sway me : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with positive edit wars

Category:Wikipedians with positive edit wars - the reverse category of the nomination directly below. Sorry to hear it, but the userbox would still be enough. It too is empty and uncategorised. - jc37 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with negative edit wars

Category:Wikipedians with negative edit wars - While I'm happy to hear it, the userbox would be enough. The category is also empty and uncategorised. - jc37 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it's empty.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with evil clones

Category:Wikipedians with evil clones - jc37 11:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a varying wikilosophy

Category:Wikipedians with a varying wikilosophy - From one perspective, the category is too broad, from another, since it's a category that essentially says that its members deal with every situation on a case-by-case basis, it could potentially contain all wikipedians. (Except those who may claim to be biased?) - jc37 11:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a ponytail one foot long or longer

Category:Wikipedians with a ponytail one foot long or longer - : ) - jc37 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a Massachusetts accent

Merge Category:Wikipedians with a Massachusetts accent to Wikipedians in Massachusetts - jc37 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge - as nominator. - jc37 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also similar to a clothing category.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I might agree, I think that a rename may help prevent a re-creation. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment USEFUL? On what grounds? If we ever want to voicechat with a Wikipedian we know they have a Massachusetts accent? What does this category permit for other than trivial user information? A category isn't needed for this, merely a comment on the userpage will suffice. It's like having a category: Category:Wikipedians who are Wikipedians--WaltCip 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And on that note, delete.--WaltCip 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, emotional, are we? :) Anyway, let me explain. I admit that the usefulness of this category is extremely marginal, but potentially it still can be useful. If one is to illustrate articles about dialects and accents of American English with sound files, it might be very helpful to know who the native speakers of a certain dialect are. Good luck finding an American speaker with Boston accent without a category... I know it's all a bit far-fetched, but as long as there is a potential for something being useful, I am not going to vote to delete it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, wow. I have to admit, you really surprised me : ) - Very nice answer by the way. However, that said (hears music of doom - something beethoven-ish perhaps - in the background), Wikipedians in Massachusetts might be a good place to look for that as well (hence, merge). - jc37 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be, but someone's mere being in Massachusetts does not automatically make one speak in corresponding accent :) Thus, I still stand by my original vote that this category should stay as more specific. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - If no consensus to merge, Delete - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians whose hobby is Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedians whose hobby is Wikipedia - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see the usefulness of a category in this case. - jc37 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can't exactly say why, though. This is kind of a declaration of Wikipedia status, which makes me think I'd want to go to these people for... what, thankless tasks? Building a consensus? Planning a meetup? Something. Anyway, I'd keep it for now.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that include everyone though? Hobby doesn't necessarily equal how intensively a person does that hobby. - jc37 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's project related, harmless, and not totally inane. --tjstrf talk 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't that include all of us? -- ProveIt (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who watch WindTunnel

Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch WindTunnel to Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain - per WindTunnel with Dave Despain and consistency. Though it only contains userbox-related pages and the creator's page. - jc37 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think most people who watch this show (well, me, the one time I did) call it WindTunnel. Rename per the category's creator below.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no real preference, except that it should be whatever the show's actual name is. I was/am just going by the article. - jc37 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as creator of this category, I think it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedias who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain I don't know how many people like this show who work on Wikipedia, but there has to be some out there. Chris 01:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who watch Dumb and Dumber

Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch Dumb and Dumber to Category:Wikipedians who like Dumb & Dumber - per consistency. - jc37 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use split infinitives

Category:Wikipedians who use split infinitives - While informative, I think the userbox is enough. - jc37 10:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians whose names anagram to other Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians whose names anagram to other Wikipedians - Among other things, this would be better as a List... (pairs of words are better listed than categorised). - jc37 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're gonna do that, at least tell us whose name you anagram to.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete catcruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use caffeine

Category:Wikipedians who use caffeine - Not exactly a food category... - jc37 10:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think outfits need cat hair

Merge Category:Wikipedians who think outfits need cat hair to Category:Wikipedians who love cats - jc37 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is "Teh Win"

Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is "Teh Win" - Well, besides other issues, according to this web site, the definition of "win" is ambiguous. - jc37 10:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes - If it was telling jokes, I could see the collaboration purpose... - jc37 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets my definition of a hobby, and there are lots of related articles: Joy Buzzer, Snake Nut Can, etc.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - Due to my nomination comment being applied by Mike Selinker : ) - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who own The Black Parade album

Merge Category:Wikipedians who own The Black Parade album to Category:Wikipedians who listen to My Chemical Romance - jc37 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the New York Jets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty)--Mike Selinker 12:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who like the New York Jets to Category:Wikipedian New York Jets fans - per consistency. - jc37 10:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like crank calls

Category:Wikipedians who like crank calls - Can't imagine usefulness. - jc37 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Again, it's a hobby, though I can't imagine how one could write much about it.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't either... - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been at least one TV series and one series of comedy albums dedicated to the topic, see Crank Yankers and the Jerky Boys. Lots of radio announcers on 'hip' stations will use prank calls in their broadcasts. It's practically a comedy genre.  Erielhonan  21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think we could call it a "genre" of comedy. Though it's been used recently as a "type" of comedic performance. But if we start categorising by types of comedic performance, how about performing in blackface? impressionists? ventriloquists? magicians? The latter four (due to their long history), at least have been around long enough to be considered. And "phone calls" have been done in comedy for years. (I think George Jessel had a call to his mother as a part of his act.) Is this really a trend we should start? How about drama types? (and let's not get into dramadies : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Three Stooges

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like The Three Stooges to Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans - per consistency. - jc37 09:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hope to own dogs

Category:Wikipedians who hope to own cats

Category:Wikipedians who hope to own dogs
Category:Wikipedians who hope to own cats
Similar to the "hope to be pilots" category below. I don't see how this category would be useful for collaboration. - jc37 09:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate the New York Yankees

Category:Wikipedians who hate the New York Yankees - Another "not" category. - jc37 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Eurobeat

Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Eurobeat to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Eurobeat music - per consistency. - jc37 09:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history

Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history to Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history (fiction) - per consistency and Alternate history (fiction). - jc37 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename though I think you can ditch the parenthetical.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently it's needed for disambiguation according to alternative history. - jc37 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay. But at least ditch the parentheses. Let's not be too enamored of page titles.--Mike Selinker 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Don't Rename - as creator of the category. Alt-history is how the genre is referred to conversationally, and user categories are more for community-building than for any sort of officialdom (my understanding). Granted it's an abbreviation and sort of jargony, but it makes it identifiable to users. If rename happens, I support Mike Selinker's proposal to elide the parentheses (thereby making the category title Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction), for the reason stated in MS's comments as well as because the category name would then match the text in the category description and in the linked userbox. Also, if rename happens, please create a temp redirect till I get a chance to modify the linked userbox (within no more than 48 hrs), and please post a msg on my talk page letting me know that it was indeed renamed. Thanks,  Erielhonan  17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (about: Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction) - I would prefer that we follow the article name, whenever we can. (And (fiction) would seem to be the correct disambiguation.) - jc37
    The disambiguation is only semi-necessary in the first place. The terms are different, though similar (alternative history = research paradigm, alternate history = literary genre). Also, the w/o parentheses version of the title redirects to the parenthesize-entitled article. The parentheses imply a relationship that doesn't directly exist with the research topic (though the research certainly can inform the fiction). Alt-history is a subgenre of speculative fiction, and more closely akin to sci-fi than it is to any academic research. IMHO, alt-history is sufficient, but I stand by my previous comment regarding action.  Erielhonan  21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy electronic music

Merge Category:Wikipedians who enjoy electronic music to Category:Wikipedians who listen to electronic music - jc37 08:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy sci-fi

Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy sci-fi to Category:Wikipedians who read sci-fi - per consistency. - jc37 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Rename - sci-fi is how the genre is commonly referred to, and user categories of this ilk are for community-building so should reflect the common usage of the community in question.  Erielhonan  18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Maybe change "enjoy" to "like" and leave it at that.--Mike Selinker 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (confused) - The nomination doesn't suggest changing "sci-fi"... - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'kay, I was speeding through this and assumed a similar change to that proposed for 'alt-history'. I agree with the NPOV rename and Withdraw my previous recommendation.  Erielhonan  21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who enjoy smooth jazz music

Rename Wikipedians who enjoy smooth jazz music to Wikipedians who listen to smooth jazz music - per consistency. - jc37 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians under influence

Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians under influence to Category:Wikipedians who edit under the influence - Since it includes alcohol as well as various drugs, I think it's too broad to be useful. It's also of questionable usefulness. - jc37 08:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that have been arrested before

Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians that have been arrested before to Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested - jc37 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [changed from Rename per MS, below - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete, maybe. What's this useful for?--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - it's a community-builder, believe it or not. As in, "look, we've been arrested and we are still a productive member of society," maybe. Also a collaboration point as an interest group. Though I'm sure a significant portion of Wikipedians have been arrested and still wouldn't join the category, for obvious reasons. But the superfluous terminal preposition/adverb has to go.  Erielhonan  20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. This does not assist in collaboration, and as you said, Wikipedians would not willingly join the category. Plus, it does not provide any fair usefulness as a category. Rather, it looks more like a criminal record book. Delete per nom.--WaltCip 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bold assertion of certainty. You can't dispute that collaboration can come from this category. Who would know the various laws around DUI or disorderly conduct or common features of local jails than people who have been involved in the system? It's has the potential to be an insider category, and a source of collaboration on jurisprudence and criminal justice. User:Erielhonan 22:09, 19 May 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Rename.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that edit the Uruguayan Portal

Rename Category:Wikipedians that edit the Uruguayan Portal to Category:Wikipedians who use the Uruguayan portal - jc37 08:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South

Merge Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South to Category:Wikipedians in West Virginia - per consistency. - jc37 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone - not an identical group (people who live in other states can hold this point of view), and a cultural debate that has regional validity. As a former resident of Pittsburgh, PA, which shares a lot of linguistic and cultural similarities with West Virginia, I fall in the opposing camp.  Erielhonan  20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is fine. But how does this provide a means for collaboration? (And remember, they still retain the userbox/userpage notice stating their belief.) - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any affinity group is a potential source of collaboration. I don't think shutting down legitimate networking is a good idea. See my comments about locale/state/region affinity below. User:Erielhonan 3:13 PM PST 11/25/06.

Category:Wikipedians that are Maple-Leafs fans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy merge to extant category.--Mike Selinker 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians that are Maple-Leafs fans to Category:Wikipedian Toronto Maple Leafs fans - per consistency. - jc37 08:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians seeking adoption in Adopt-a-user

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians seeking adoption in Adopt-a-user - Completing an apparent attempt by User:Flameviper. It's empty, and apparently has been replaced by other categories for the program. - jc37 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it's empty.--Mike Selinker 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of another species

Category:Furry Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians of another species
Category:Furry Wikipedians
My first inclination is to Delete, however, such Wikipedians would likely know about Anime & manga; Animal-based RPGs; and Computer and video games. In any case, the first category needs a better name. Also, It is populated by 3 divergent though similar userboxes (See: Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Wikipedians of another species). If kept, it should be split, renamed, and used as a parent category for all 4. Any ideas for the new name(s)? - jc37 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Furry Wikipedians at least, as it is a defined subgroup - those Wikipedians who are members of the furry fandom, and who are likely to edit articles in Category:Furry. Not so sure about the other one - I agree that it is a little vague. Note that being a member of the furry fandom does not imply that you believe yourself to be a member of another species, so the Furry Wikipedians category should probably not be a subcategory of Wikipedians of another species. GreenReaper 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "another species," but Keep "Furry." Furry is a recognized collaborative community with its own wiki based on our own.--Mike Selinker 10:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other species, as it seems to be a joke. Rename furry category to "Wikipedians interested in furry fandom". --Gray Porpoise 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GENERAL Comment on many of these proposals - please keep in mind that affinity != interest != identity. I am interested in the furry thing as a cultural topic, but do not share the affinity or identity. I have an affinity toward the Southern U.S., but do not share the identity. I may speak with a Massachusetts accent (I actually don't, but if I did...), I don't necessarily live in Massachusetts or have much interest in why it sounds like it does. Just saying, you can't reasonably merge categories like this.  Erielhonan  21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other species cat, rename furry cat to "Wikipedians interested in furry topics". "Wikipedians interested in furry fandom wouldn't be as good; it sounds too much like they're interested in the fandom as a hobby. "Wikipedians interested in furry topics" would include people such as myself that are interested in articles pertaining to the fandom but aren't at all interested in the fandom personally. Voretustalk 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "another species"; keep "furry". Then again, we have equally ridiculous categories such as Category:Martian Wikipedians, so maybe I should change that to weak delete "another species". (Full disclosure: I use userboxes that put me in both categories (i.e., "furry" and "other species"), but I only use the "other species" for the userbox; I could care less about the fate of that category.) ---Bersl2 11:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "other species", per the varied reasons above (including my own : ) - We should probably rename "furry" at some point, but, there doesn't seem to be consensus on a name yet. (I was laughing to myself about: Category:Wikipedians interested in all things furry : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Tang-e Bolaghi

Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Tang-e Bolaghi to Category:Wikipedians interested in saving Tang-e Bolaghi - populated by Template:User Tang-e Bolaghi, and only one member (the category/userbox creator). I think the userbox should be enough in this case. - jc37 07:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who wish new computers came with floppy drives

Merge Category:Users who wish new computers came with floppy drives to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers - jc37 06:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are trying to be not currently active

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are trying to be not currently active to Wikipedians taking a Wikibreak - Category populated by Template:Attempting wikibreak. (Name taken from text in template.) - jc37 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If what you're proposing is to merge Template:Attempting wikibreak into Template:Wikibreak, I'd prefer a rename to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active as that is the category that Template:Wikibreak uses. If you're just looking for a semantic change, try Category: Wikipedians attempting a wikibreak --RoninBKETC 07:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not attempting to merge any templates. However, if this nomination goes through, the intention is to have similar templates to populate the same category. Unification should equal ease of navigation. - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe. You're either online or off, sez I.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hesitant to delete, due to the other active/inactive categories, but you're probably right. - Delete, if there's no consensus to support a particular rename. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename - the proposed renaming uses self-referential jargon, making it less accessible to casual users and nonusers. On this level it trends toward local jargon, where the other proposals I've commented on in opposition trend away from global jargon. If a rename happens, it should at the very least clarify and not obfuscate.  Erielhonan  18:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Participants in WikiProject National Football League

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[moved to speedy - jc37 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Rename Category:Participants in WikiProject National Football League to Category:WikiProject National Football League participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who are currently online

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are currently online to Category:Wikipedians who are currently online (Users to Wikipedians) - jc37 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's pretty redundant, and won't always be true. --Majorly (Talk) 19:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing, the category doesn't exist. -Amarkov blahedits 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as second name above) - Cool. All those in/out systems can now be categorized. Nice little feature. Especially for finding admins. There should be a subcat just for them. Is there?  The Transhumanist   22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What happened here? It looks like the nominated category has already been renamed (which I support anyway). —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's in speedy, so I gave it two days and renamed it.--Mike Selinker 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees Fans

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees Fans to Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees fans (f) - jc37 09:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that are VandalProof moderators

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that are VandalProof moderators to Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators (s that are) - jc37 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa to Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa (that to who) - jc37 08:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This is a speedy process. I won't try to pressure a delete here, since it will just end up as no consensus and get us nowhere.--WaltCip 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Just do it. It's a grammar fix.  The Transhumanist   22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category doesn't aid in collaboration. However, if the category isn't deleted (as it appears that it won't be), rename per nom. —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who play Perplex City

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Users who play Perplex City to Category:Wikipedians who play Perplex City (Users to Wikipedians) - jc37 06:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 24

Category:Wikipedians who love Sealab 2021

Rename Category:Wikipedians who love Sealab 2021 to Category:Category:Wikipedians who like Sealab 2021. That's a TV show, so it needs "like."--Mike Selinker 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who is a fan of John Cena

Merge Category:Wikipedians who is a fan of John Cena to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - another one. - jc37 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who eats protien diet

Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians who eats protien diet to Category:Wikipedians on a protein diet - empty, except for the associated userbox. - jc37 12:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who eat at Quiznos Sub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who eat at Quiznos Sub - empty, among other things. - jc37 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who drinks Coca-Cola

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who drinks Coca-Cola - "food" category, and possibly a recreation. - jc37 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as recreation. Its title isn't even in proper grammar! --Gray Porpoise 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are members of the SOS Brigade - Wikipedia Branch

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are members of the SOS Brigade - Wikipedia Branch to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - per consistency. - jc37 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Red Sox

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Red Sox to Category:Wikipedian Boston Red Sox fans - per consistency. - jc37 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the movie Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”)

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the movie Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”) to Category:Wikipedians who like Doppelgänger (1969 film) - Should be obvious : ) - jc37 12:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Transformers

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Transformers to Category:Wikipedians who like Transformers or Category:Wikipedians who like the Transformers - Similar to the Power Rangers comment below. - jc37 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jean-Luc Godard

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jean-Luc Godard to Category:Wikipedians who like Jean-Luc Godard films - per consistency. - jc37 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Game Triple H

Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Game Triple H to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - Another one. - jc37 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Cryme Time

Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Cryme Time to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - See similar nomination below. - jc37 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of CNBC

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of CNBC to Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC - jc37 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Colossus: The Forbin Project

Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per creator's request.--Mike Selinker 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers to Category:Wikipedians who like Power Rangers or Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers - Since it's not just about a single show, but rather any show that features the Power Rangers as characters, I thought I would offer both options. - jc37 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers - as nominator. - jc37 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "the Power Rangers" version.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "the Power Rangers" version, truthfully I thought the issues that would come up with this cat was with the Userboxes I made for it. If this is the only problem then by all means be my guest.Phoenix741 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are excellent userboxes, Phoenix. Just a wording issue with the category name, is all.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then by all means change it, heck i will change it if someone shows me how.Phoenix741 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are Caians

Rename Category:Wikipedians who are Caians to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gonville and Caius, University of Cambridge - jc37 11:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who've eaten silica gel

Category:Wikipedians who've eaten silica gel - Dunno if I'd call it a "food" category...  : ) - jc37 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They're still with us? Must not have been a lot of silica gel.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that have been powered up by Maxy the Cloud

Category:Wikipedians that have been powered up by Maxy the Cloud - It's cute, but it's merely a category of those who use User:Masky's userbox. - jc37 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Uh, yeah, I mean delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think mike means delete also, but hey I don't know.Phoenix741 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume so too, But I guess we'll have to wait and see : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete catcruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa

Category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa - Another "not" category. - jc37 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States

Merge Category:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States to Category:Wikipedians in the United States. - jc37 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada

Merge Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada to Category:Wikipedians in Canada. - jc37 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fans of Chobits

Rename Category:Fans of Chobits to Category:Wikipedians who like Chobits per consistency in Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, and per Chobits. - jc37 10:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Totoro

Rename Category:Wikipedians of Totoro to Category:Wikipedians who like My Neighbor Totoro per consistency in Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, and per My Neighbor Totoro. - jc37 10:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who descend from Confederate soldiers

Category:Wikipedians who descend from Confederate soldiers - This is similar to the nomination directly below, except the descent isn't by regional nationality. - jc37 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 10:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by ancertry --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See response below. - jc37 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Wikipedians descended from Confederate soldiers. This doesn't seem too connected to the other categories, and can be judged separately, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and the rename sounds fine with me. Though as an alternative, how about: "Wikipedian descendants of Confederate soldiers" ? (Either one is fine with me, at this point.) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with (X) Ancestry

Delete or Rename to whatever consensus decides the standard should be. - jc37 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by ancertry --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm also asking is what the "standard" for renaming each of this so that they are consistant in naming convention with each other. - jc37 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "with (X) ancestry" versions. It's different than the "born in" versions, as someone can have never been to Greece and still have Greek ancestry.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Wikipedians of (X) ancestry" (not Ancestry) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note: These were the only example of ancestry categories. Is this a trend we want to start? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Mike Selinker. These seem to have some use for collaboration. -- nae'blis 04:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this one's time is almost up, there's little point to start a new idea, but after doing some checking, I think these should be merged (with appropriate names) into Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity (which is nominated for a rename, itself). However until then... - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - I think I personally prefer "of" in this case. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians waiting for Godot

Category:Wikipedians no longer waiting for Godot

Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who read Samuel Beckett. - The author of the the book in question. - jc37 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like dozenal

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like dozenal to Category:Wikipedians who like duodecimal - per the name of the associated article duodecimal. (The category even links to it.) - jc37 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians confused by politics

Category:Wikipedians confused by politics - At times, aren't we all? : ) - jc37 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian riders

Rename Category:Wikipedian riders to Wikipedian horseback riders or Wikipedian equstrians - per Horseback riding (the former name of the article), and Equestrian (the current name of the article). I have no preference which, but since one fully changes the name, while the other merely dabs it, I thought I would offer both choices. - jc37 09:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian llama racers

Category:Wikipedian llama racers - Doesn't even seem to have an associated article. - jc37 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. would be funny to see a llama race though. --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the pen spinners, there's no reason to think this isn't a legit hobby.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We only categorise by hobby if this leads to collaboration possibilities. There isn't even an article for this. There's even a possibility that it's something made up in school one day. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No collaborative purpose since there's no article for it, and like jc37 said, it may be something just made up. —Cswrye 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians hoping to be pilots

Delete or Merge Category:Wikipedians hoping to be pilots to Category:Wikipedian student pilots - However, considering the associated userbox, I don't think the merge is appropriate. - jc37 08:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They haven't necessarily set foot in a plane yet. This seems harmless to me.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Harmless, but not useful? They still keep the usebox : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly all categories are harmless. But half of those categories are also useless. Write an essay: I think WP:HARMLESS would be a good policy for us CfD policemen to fall back on.--WaltCip 04:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian barefooters

Category:Wikipedian barefooters - Me too (wriggles my toes), but even if I type with my feet, I don't see how this is useful : ) - jc37 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the pen spinners, there's no reason to think this isn't a legit hobby.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Selinker — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I guess I have to ask what's starting to feel like a cliche'd question... Even if we consider this a hobby, how does it help for collaboration? (And technically (presuming we have feet), we're all barefooters at some point or other...) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Waterbenders

Category:Wikipedian Firebenders

Category:Wikipedian Earthbenders

Category:Wikipedian Airbenders

Merge all to Category:Wikipedian Avatar: The Last Airbender fans. (Unless we have cartoon characters among us : ) - jc37 08:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian's who's favorite tag team in professional wrestling is DX currently working for WWE RAW brand

Merge Category:Wikipedian's who's favorite tag team in professional wrestling is DX currently working for WWE RAW brand to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE. Should be self-explanatory : ) - jc37 08:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 08:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Way too specific.--Mike Selinker 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - just confuses me reading the explanation of the category on that page --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This may very well be more weighty than Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD--WaltCip 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Knights of the Order of the Tin Foil Sword of Great Justice

Category:Wikipedians in the Knights of the Order of the Tin Foil Sword of Great Justice - Before commenting, take a look at the template which populates this category: Template:Foilsword. The humour is unmistakable, but its civility could possibly be considered questionable. In any case, I don't believe the category is should be kept. - jc37 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An organization like any other.--Mike Selinker 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you further clarify? - jc37 09:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I was going to, then I looked at it closer and I decided it's just the same as categorizing all the recipients of a barnstar. So delete.--Mike Selinker 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn, speedy keep. --ais523 09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations to Category:Wikipedians in Esperanza - single member, and would seem to be a duplication. - jc37 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Esperanza and Esperanto have nothing to do with each other.--Mike Selinker 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - sleepy eyes apparently missed that in pasting. Good catch : )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Friendly Wikipedians

Category:Friendly Wikipedians - Another of the "nice" categories : ) - jc37 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator, and per previous discussions. - jc37 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we'd already seen it, but I couldn't find a tag in the page history. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhappy delete - Pity it has to go, but I understand that it must. I also thought I saw this being discussed for deletion before - wonder where it's gone? Nihiltres 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth - per nom.--WaltCip 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who celebrate Mother's Day

Category:Wikipedians who celebrate Mother's Day - Same reasons as St. George's Day, below. - jc37 06:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who celebrate St. George's Day

Category:Wikipedians who celebrate St. George's Day - There are only two of these "celebrates a holidy" categories (The other is mother's day). Imagine: Wikipedians by holiday celebrations. Consider all the religious and secular holidays, and think about whether we want something like that. - jc37 06:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument convinced me. Delete.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipe

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipe to Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes (s) - jc37 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust trust Jimbo

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust trust Jimbo to Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo (extra trust : ) - jc37 13:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffarge in Hong Kong

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffarge in Hong Kong to Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong (obvious typo) - jc37 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge--Yes, I created that category, thank you for spotting that lousy typo. Please go ahead with the merge :) --OH-J 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Local History

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians for Local History to Category:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history (caps and adding "WikiProject" clarifier) - jc37 09:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: university of newcastle, australia

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: university of newcastle, australia to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Newcastle, Australia (Caps) - jc37 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with IQ above 150

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians with an IQ above 150, or Delete. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - I think you could have speedied (a, an, the) that one : ) - jc37 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Though maybe "IQs" is better than "an IQ".--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure it's a recreation, but it was called something else and there's no easy way to find the discussion... ProveIt (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's empty we can speedily delete it.--Mike Selinker 18:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per comments above. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 23

Category:Crazy Wikipedians

Category:Crazy Wikipedians - Poor duplication of Category:Wikipedians by mental condition - jc37 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator and per Mike Selinker below : ) - jc37 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not specific enough to be useful, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a humor category, but otherwise, it's essentially the same as Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category is a waste of space.--WaltCip 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols

Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika

Delete or UpMerge Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika to Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols. If Delete, then Delete Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols, as well. (Both are tagged.) Only a single member (who created the userbox which populates the category). - jc37 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as nominator. - jc37 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one's all me. I couldn't abide "Wikipedians interested in Swastika" sitting on the category:Wikipedians by interest page, so I created an ubercategory for it (which no one else created a subcategory of). I can't say it fails the "useful to find an expert" test, though.--Mike Selinker 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols and upmerge Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika into it. I can see how it could be helpful to find people who are knowledgeable about symbols in general, but categories for specific symbols is overcategorization. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be the one thing I oppose, since the user in question isn't interested in symbols, he's interested in the Swastika.--Mike Selinker 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only one member, and his userbox should be enough to find him (what links here). How about "delete for now", and if we get more people interested in symbols, recreation later could be possible? - jc37 07:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you make good arguments. Delete both for now, but I'm not against recreating Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols if there are ever any Wikipedians who actually are interested in symbols. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Yonks ago, we had a CfD for "Fascist Wikipedians". We really don't need another call to get up on the soapbox. And the symbols thing is a bit of a yawner.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge and keep the intersted in symbols category. A very useful collaboration category; symbols and symbology is a vast and encyclopedic topic.  Erielhonan  22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fine category, Erielhonen, but no one has decided to be in it yet. So if the Swastika category goes, this should go too, because it will be empty.--Mike Selinker 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • what's the rationale for deleting fine categories just because they are empty? An argument in favor of leaving them is: a new user without the chops to or interest in learning to create a new category would be able to self-select an empty category, but wouldn't be able to self-select a deleted category. If the category has merit, let's not assume that 'empty now' = 'useless'.  Erielhonan  00:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Erielhonan, around 5PM PST, Saturday after Thanxgiving (US).[reply]
        • Empty now = reason to delete. It's one of our main criteria for speedy deletion.--Mike Selinker 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So 3 delete both, 1 merge, and MS's opinion isn't quite clear? (If one goes, the other goes, is about all I got from it so far : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Atheism

Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in Atheism to Category:Atheist Wikipedians. per consistency. - jc37 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I know that they can technically have different meanings, but for the purposes of this project, I don't think that we need that level of distinction. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are userboxes for religious Wikipedians and Wikipedians interested in religion as a hobby; this is no different, although more specific than the example given. Blast 11.24.06 0153 (UTC -5)
    Actually, no there aren't. There's one for interests in religions in general, and then a myriad of belief subcats. There are two exceptions, this one, and Category:Wikipedians interested in Sikhism, which I've hesitated to nominate. (I'm considering a merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in religions, but I haven't decided yet). And if we start introducing interest in specific religion categories, they will duplicate all the belief subcats, plus include everyone interested, resulting in large, unwieldy categories, whose usefulness is questionable at best. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in religions. If I were interested in atheism (I'm not, mind you), would that automatically make me an atheist? --Gray Porpoise 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - under the principle that interest != identity. I for one am interested in atheism (as I am interested in all human perspectives on theology), but am not an atheist.  Erielhonan  22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hellbound Wikipedians

Category:Hellbound Wikipedians - Possibly, but that doesn't mean that they need to be categorised by it. : ) - jc37 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can't know this is true.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a joke category and no purpose as a category. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Am I going to hell for supporting this CfD?--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian pen spinners

Category:Wikipedian pen spinners - I have to admit, this one made me smile. - jc37 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a legitimate hobby with its own article. Meets the "useful to find an expert" test.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if it was a subcat of jugglers and plate spinners, which I highly doubt is what the category membership consist of... - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we only categorise by hobby if this leads to collaboration possibilities. There's even a possibility that it's something made up in school one day. (The reference section of the related article even has a cleanup tag : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - It's a legitimate hobby, but I'm generally reluctant to keep user categories that essentially only apply to one article. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no World Pen Spinner Championship, at least not yet.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who drive rusty pieces of junk

Category:Wikipedians who drive rusty pieces of junk - Again, Just read its name and introduction. : ) - jc37 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who crashed a hot car

Category:Wikipedians who crashed a hot car - Just read its name and introduction. : ) - jc37 13:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't see how this could be useful. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by transportation

Merge Category:Wikipedians by transportation to Category:Wikipedians by interest or Category:Wikipedians by skill, as appropriate. The subcats are already members of one or the other. - jc37 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [modified to add the second category per MS's comment below. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Merge/Delete per nom, as nominator. - jc37 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one's complicated. The "Wikipedians interested in" format should be the only one in "Wikipedians by interest." So we'd have to do something with the three subcategories that don't fit that. But they're all in category:Wikipedians by skill, so I just favor deleting this ubercategory.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Selinker. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users of MOTD

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

The result of the debate was delete (accelerated due to Nov 13 nomination passing). --Mike Selinker 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users of MOTD - Per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12#MOTD categories. Relisting since it's a recreation of Category:MOTDuser. However, I've also discussed this with the category creator (User talk:Geo.plrd#MOTD). - jc37 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nominator. - jc37 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This one would have passed in my last nomination had we not pulled it at the last minute.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity

Rename Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality per it's page and talk page. - jc37 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as nominator. - jc37 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Seems a very good idea to avoid the duplication of categories for each place where ethnicity and nationality are identical.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the talk page discussion. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that have never been arrested

Category:Wikipedians that have never been arrested - Another "not" category. - jc37 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - NOT category standard.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dumb Wikipedians

Category:Dumb Wikipedians - At first I was hoping this would be about Wikipedians who couldn't speak. Nope, it's populated by: Template:User ignorant (WP:CIVIL). But it gets better, the userbox says it's for Wikipedians who don't know how to use Userboxes. Which also makes it a "not" category. - jc37 11:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's an outwardly self-cancelling category.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homesick Wikipedians

Category:Homesick Wikipedians - Wikipedia, our home away from home... but knowing this is useful, why? - jc37 11:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sane Wikipedians

Category:Sane Wikipedians WP:AGF, etc. - jc37 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You don't want to take out category:Crazy Wikipedians as well?--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did. : ) - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They're coming to take me away, ha ha, they're coming to take me away, hee hee.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deceased Wikipedians

Category:Deceased Wikipedians - See Category talk:Deceased Wikipedians. - jc37 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it has some potential for abuse, I'd be sad to have it deleted. Duja► 11:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, potentially highly useful, and likely to grow.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I see the point, I think a List would be MUCH better for what you're suggesting. (Insert the typical statement about citations/references here.) - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Of what good will this category do?--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a list won't tell you this fact when you visit the user's page. -- nae'blis 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination concerns the category, not about a userbox/userpage notice. - jc37 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The userpage notice is an intrinsic and most useful feature of categories, particularly in this case.  Erielhonan  22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reason Mike Selinker states above. Though one should never, ever place the category on their own page, nor on any userpage unless they do have verifiable proof that it true.  Erielhonan  22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Selinker and Erielhonan. Memmke 10:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering if any was aware of this list, which I presume is better than just the category? - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pissed-off Wikipedians

Category:Pissed-off Wikipedians - Useful? - jc37 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who do not know their astrological sign

Category:Wikipedians who do not know their astrological sign - This would appear to be a "not" category. - jc37 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only one of the astrology categories I'll support deleting.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is similar to the "Wikipedians to don't like X" categories. We don't need to categorize people by what they don't know. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This could very well be the most insipidly useless category out there.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's a "not" category, and one can always find out what their astrological sign is by reading the article. --Gray Porpoise 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who lie about their age

Category:Wikipedians who lie about their age - And this is useful because? : ) - jc37 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically a "not" category.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators suffering from Adminitis

Category:Wikipedia administrators suffering from Adminitis - Users are added to this by a rather large page header: {{Adminitis}} - I don't think the category is necessary. - jc37 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the page header is funny, but the category is unnecessary. Duja► 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a good thing to put in the category with real impairments.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who wear class rings

Category:Wikipedians who wear class rings - We already have Category:Wikipedians by education and its various subcats. - jc37 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clothing categories.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian vigils

Category:Wikipedian vigils - Ignoring usefulness, 3 out of 4 have apparently returned : ) - jc37 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I guess they work. :^) --Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Deceased Wikipedians  Erielhonan  22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's gotta be humor : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Earth

Category:Wikipedians of Earth - Another location of us all : ) - jc37 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impossible to avoid being in this one.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a sci-fi fan, I take issue with the lack of long-term thinking this comment implies. :-) Just kidding, I really don't care about this one.  Erielhonan  22:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can recreate in the future if we start to populate other planets or the moon. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All-inclusive category that does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I myself am a Wikipedian of Mars. Delete - per nom. You didn't see anything.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, nothing to see here, moving along : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we colonise other planets or make alien contact. --Gray Porpoise 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by subculture

Merge Category:Wikipedians by subculture to Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. Look at the two categories to see why. - jc37 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, makes sense and "subculture" is a rather vague term. Not sure I like lifestyle either, but it's more inclusive. Also, wow at Category:Knighted Wikipedians. Do you think that's a joke or is he really a knight? --tjstrf talk 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Duja► 12:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subculture is an easy idea to parse. It doesn't directly imply lifestyle (immigrants tend to be members of an immigrant subculture, but that doesn't mean they share lifestyle habits aside from speech and other things that go with shared origin). Lifestyle is a politically loaded term, too. Is gay a lifestyle? I'm gay, and I don't share a lot of the the lifestyle practices of many people from my subculture, though I do share a common identity and I socialize within the subculture. In another direction, is hip-hop a lifestyle, or a fashion? You open a political can of worms by implying a connection between the two ubercategories.  Erielhonan  22:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who regret their mistakes

Category:Wikipedians who regret their mistakes - I'm sure we all do, but do we need a category for it? : ) - jc37 10:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since creator accepts making mistakes in the first place, that would certainly be one! NikoSilver 13:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like I said, I'm against driving out all these categories, but if we're killing some, we should kill them all.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think these boxes should be kept because some users will explode if you try to tell them they made a mistake but if you have this box on your userpage then if you make a mistake the person telling them will be glad they won't be yelled at.Natasha rocks 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This nomination won't remove the userbox, only the category. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone should regret their mistakes. A category is not necessary. See the previous "Friendly Wikipedian" discussions.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sarcastic Wikipedians

Category:Sarcastic Wikipedians - (Not even gonna make the obvious puns... Oh what the heck) What? Like we needed a category to let others know? What were you thinkin'? : )- jc37 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most are.--Mike Selinker 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't sarcasm illegal now anyway? --tjstrf talk 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very existence of the category spoils its purpose. Duja► 12:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooooh, this cat is soooo useful. (Radiant) 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to simply 'Wikipedians'! :-) NikoSilver 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPER DUPER ULTRA STRONG AND SPEEDY KEEP!!! Delete per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" - "everybody" is in that category. It's "so useful". We "need" it to show that we're sarcastic. (Delete.) --Gray Porpoise 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm signing all of you up for the category before it's deleted :-D  Erielhonan  22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parent Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted--Mike Selinker 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parent Wikipedians - Empty category, which was populated by a userbox that's since been deleted. - jc37 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since it's empty.--Mike Selinker 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since it's empty. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who procrastinate

Category:Wikipedians who procrastinate - While possibly useful as a userbox, no need for the category. - jc37 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vote on this one later. In all seriousness though, Delete. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Procrastination is human nature.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... later. --Gray Porpoise 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Garlic-eating Wikipedians

Category:Garlic-eating Wikipedians - Another food category. (Someone like to find the link to the others?) - jc37 08:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator, and per previous discussion. - jc37 08:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous food discussions.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category unless vampires start to take over the Earth. Can recreate if that happens. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one smells.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evil Wikipedians

Category:Evil Wikipedians - Another cute, but no, category. - jc37 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like it's fine to me. You can be evil, and it can matter.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you joking? - jc37 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Of course, I'm going to support all the D&D Alignment categories too, when you nominate those.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a D&D cat, check it out. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that kind of evil. Okay, delete.--Mike Selinker 19:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's practically useless.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happy Birthday!

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn.---Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happy Birthday! - Like the other "nice" categories, this is "nice", but not needed as a category. - jc37 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not this one. It actually serves a useful purpose in the scripting of the birthday code. And users who want to know whose birthday it is can user the category to find out. I'd very much like to keep this one.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike. NikoSilver 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (for now). Several thoughts on this one myself (both sides of the fence). Feel free to close. - jc37 14:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian images

Merge Category:Wikipedian images to Category:Wikipedians with pictures. At the very least the category should be moved to Category:Wikipedians by user page. - jc37 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as nominator. - jc37 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, as consensus desires.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was surprised that there were not more images in the category. I wonder if it's "lost", and no one knows to add images to it. Think there might be a duplicate somewhere? - jc37 09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Wikipedian images is intended to categorize images, while Category:Wikipedians with pictures is intended to categorize users, so there is a distinction between them. There's probably no harm in combining the two, but I did want to point out that the categories were designed with different intentions. -Cswrye 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and I won't be heart-broken if they are kept separate. However, if they are, the next step, I think, is to find out what's going on in the Image categories (not someplace that I spend much time in), and see if there are more like these. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unless MS has a reason to oppose (since he also voted merge), I think I should probably withdraw this one, per comments above, and just the feeling that I should find out more information about such images first. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User writing systems

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

The result of the debate was delete (duplicate on Nov 13 nomination).--Mike Selinker 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User writing systems - Already has been tagged for cfr, seems to have slipped through the cracks? - jc37 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The iso writing template looks extremely complicated.--Mike Selinker 08:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's to be done? - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I figured it out. Man, that was buried deep. I deleted the category.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Eastern Hemisphere

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Northern Hemisphere

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Southern Hemisphere

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Western Hemisphere

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Eastern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Northern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Southern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Western Hemisphere
These are all duplicated by Wikipedians in <continent> the distinction for never having left a region doesn't seem useful. - jc37 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is like the "Wikipedians who don't like X" categories. There is and infinite number of things that everyone hasn't done, so categorizing by them serves no purpose. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space Wikipedians

Category:Space Wikipedians - Besides, taking up "space"... : ) - jc37 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a humorous category; does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're all in space.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian citizens of Lovely

Category:Wikipedian citizens of Lovely - An internet comic's "joke". - jc37 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can self-identify as a citizen of this micronation.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that there will be Wikipedians who are members of the 421? And further, why should we categorise the members? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to think they aren't. If someone declares their nationality on Wikipedia, we don't check it. It's a moderately legit citizenship, in my opinion, so I'm not inclined to delete it.--Mike Selinker 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the other location cats, how do you see this one useful for collaboration? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think I have to. We've agreed that locational categories are good, and this meets my standard for a locational category, so there's no reason to kill it.--Mike Selinker 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason that "we've agreed that location categories are good" is because being from a location means that the person would be uniquely able to aid in collaborations related to the region. I guess I fail to see how the above, being a comic's joke, and a website's membership list, without being any actual "location", qualifies. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agrees with Mike.  Erielhonan  22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Lunar Citizenship

Category:Wikipedians with Lunar Citizenship - Cute, but no. : ) - jc37 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure you can get this one, though.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Humor category; does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you observe Lunar Citizenship closely, you will learn that the program of Lunar Citizenship is actually legitimate. People have lent out spaces on the moon. But I doubt that many people here in WikiPedia own a piece of moon land.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Cswrye. I created this category, but Cswrye is right, it does not aid collaboration, it only satisfies one's curiosity as to how many other people share the same interest. However, it should be noted that it is not a humor category.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Galactic Citizenship

Category:Wikipedians with Galactic Citizenship - That includes all of us, I presume? : ) - jc37 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on Editor review

Category:Wikipedians on Editor review - This category duplicates the WP:ER main page. Apparently it was possibly useful at one time, but the page it linked to has since been deleted. - jc37 07:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Categories have some advantages over lists, and they are even preferred in many circumstances. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could get me to look for people to help.--Mike Selinker 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the category is rather out-of-date because WP:ER entirely streamlined its format. AFAIK it's not even used by ER anymore. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm with the deletionists on this one. Categories are generally self-selected, and in this case it's not very useful, it's redundant, and opens a bit of officialdom up for abuse. WP:ER is sufficient for people who care to browse these users, and there's an associated template.  Erielhonan  22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-approved

Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-approved - See User:Keithgreer/mrducky. I am not certain, but this looks like a WP:SPAM violation. But even if not, it shouldn't be a category. - jc37 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I nominated this for deletion quite some time ago, and there was a solid consensus to keep it. Apparently, Ducky has a lot of supporters. I don't think it serves any purpose as a category though. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized Wikipedians

Category:Uncategorized Wikipedians - According to the category introduction: "This category is for Wikipedians who are not categorized in any way. See also Russell's paradox." - Cute, but shouldn't be a category : ) - jc37 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No paradoxical categories.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Probably a humor category; does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Paradoxical.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians addicted to Wikipedia

Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians

Delete both or Merge Category:Wikipedians addicted to Wikipedia to Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians. - Is this useful in any way? - jc37 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [added merge option, per Mike Selinker's suggestion. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Category:Stub Wikipedians

Category:Stub Wikipedians - According to the category page: "List of wikipedians which do not contain enough information on their user page to describe themselves." - According to who? And do we need a category for this? : ) - jc37 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stub is a useful term for real articles, but not this.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a category for people who are requesting help with their user pages. Perhaps we can consider merging into that one. Otherwise, delete. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elitist Wikipedians

Category:Elitist Wikipedians - According to the category page: "These Wikipedians are Better" - Better than who? People who add punctuation? : ) - jc37 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yuck.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. See also Elytis! NikoSilver 13:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration, and it fosters a negative attitude within the project. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declassify for the good of our society, and to separate our kind from the lower-class bourgeoisie.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --Gray Porpoise 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to Wikipedians who deal unhealthily with their low self-esteem issues.  Erielhonan  22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with usernames with lowercase initial letters

Category:Wikipedians with usernames with lowercase initial letters - Similar to the previous. In addition, I don't think we need to categorise by Wikipedian username capitalisation preference - jc37 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. - jc37 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves something of a useful purpose, as it serves to tell you what the user's "real" name is.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful for the same reason as {{lowercase}}. --tjstrf talk 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I understand such use for articles, why is it necessary as a category for Wikipedian usernames? A note/userbox on the userpage should be enough? - jc37 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In my case, because I dislike unnecessary userboxes and because people are often too dense to actually notice that my sig is uncapitalized. --tjstrf talk 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that you feel someone is more likely to notice a category at the bottom of your userpage, than a statement at the top of your userpage? - jc37 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I buy that. This category is cleaning up inaccuracy, however minor it may be.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If this is kept, does that mean I have to use it? I try to keep cats off my userpage. (I'm not sure whether the 'inaccuracy' involved here is fake or real; would linking to User:Tjstrf or User:Ais523 be 'inaccurate'; after all, that's the name used in page histories! --ais523 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'd have to agree with that. The reason for Template:Lowercase, is to explain that "out there" the real name of such-n-such is "x", while on Wikipedia, while a person may prefer that their initial letter is lower case, doesn't mean that it is. Since on Wikipedia, it's not. So "technically", this category name is false, such usernames don't have lowercase initial letters, but rather the user with those usernames wish that their chosen username had a lowercase first letter. - 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with underscores in their usernames

Category:Wikipedians with underscores in their usernames - This would seem to be similar to the alphabet ones recently deleted. - jc37 07:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how this could be useful.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not aid in collaboration. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete._Not_very_useful. --Gray Porpoise 18:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians
  • Comment - Ok, before you think I've gone nuts...  : ) - This is just a nomination for the deletion/removal of members within the category, NOT the category itself, or any of its subcategories. Since, essentially, we're all wikipedians here, this would just become a duplicate of the user list. It will likely involve changing individual userboxes, as well as userpages. If you agree, to make clear your opinion, say something like: Remove category members. - jc37 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove category members but not subcats or the category itself, as nominator. - jc37 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove category members.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members; would not keep up with ...WP:SIZE. NikoSilver 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members per nom. VegaDark 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would really like to see all the users in this category removed, but I think it's generally considered bad etiquette to add or remove users from an existing user category. The way that the Wikipedia:User categorization has traditionally handled it has been to ask users to add or removed themselves from categories instead. That may be something to consider doing instead, because a lot of users might not like to see their user pages edited against their will when the category does exist. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really compelling argument. A better way to handle this might be to put a banner at the top that encourages people to remove themselves from the category.--Mike Selinker 06:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this any different than any other CFD? A category is deleted, and the users are removed. In this case, we can place a further note/banner at the top of the page requesting that no one add themselves to the umbrella cat. However, when I checked a few, I've found several userboxes so far which categorize to it. There are also Wikipedians who somehow think that if you use a pipe "|" you can subcategorize yourself that way (Example: [[Category:Wikipedians|by education|student]] It's a mess, and an initial one-time bot clean-up would be more than helpful. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a subtle difference, but it's still one that might bother people. On a CFD, we're voting on what to do to a category, not to user pages. We only make changes to user pages because the categories no longer exist or have changed names, which is generally seen as a good faith edit. Removing someone from a category that does exist may not be taken well by some people, especially those who want to just be categorized as "Wikipedians" for whatever reason. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I think it is, but I know that I wouldn't want people to take me out of categories that I wanted to put myself in. Editing userboxes is kind of gray area because people who add userboxes to their user pages may not necessarily care about the categories that are attatched to userboxes. Also, you're not editing the user page itself. I would actually be okay with making changes to the userboxes that put users into this category. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members per nom.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove members I came upon this category on someone else's userpage and thought about nominating it for deletion. Low and behold... -- tariqabjotu 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate userpages No use in having a category that can apply to every user; a category that applies to categories of users makes more sense. --ais523 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change name to Categories of Wikipedians or Wikipedians by. Users will be less inclined to add their user pages to such a list, because they no longer fit the description.  The Transhumanist   22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to calling it "Wikipedian categories", since that's pretty much what they are. But I suggest that such a "rename" be discussed after this nomination is done. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mediation Cabal Mediator to Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal

Matching other subcategories of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Category:Wikipedians interested in comic books

Moved from CfD. The nomination is copied below. --ais523 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User&oldid=90934232"