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

< July 2007	September 2007 >

August 30[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of a particular high school does not inherently foster contribution. The social networking aspect of it is not something to be desired by our user category system. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nomination includes the following subcategories:

Strong Delete - As those who've seen my comments in previous discussions involving these categories may remember, I oppose these alma mater categories. While college or university attended may possibly be notable (especially considering possible degrees), general education attendance doesn't seem useful to me, and seems to be more of "chat room" or even of the oft-exampled "myspace", in utility. - jc37 08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Waste of a category, useless. Also, take note of the potential privacy concerns 9although i suppose it is one's choice to add themselves into a cat) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strongly encourages social networking. There's a vague argument by some about the notion of organizing people to support various articles or groups of articles by including oneself in a category, to make yourself a resource to others. This is a pretty weak argument on the face of it. We're all Wikipedians, and that's the only school that matters. This kind of myspace-cruft is anathema to our purposes here. Removal will annoy a number of users, but it's the right thing to do. --Durin 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - go to myspace or facebook for your social networking needs, this is Wikipedia. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Durin, essentially. The social networking/MySpace aspect is significantly greater than the limited opportunity for collaborative potential afforded by these largely single-user categories. The mere fact of attending a secondary school is little proof of an ability to contribute encyclopedically about it or an interest in it. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per Durin and ST47. There's not even much potential for collaboration in these categories; only one has more than 10 members, and a majority of them are single-editor categories (one of them is empty); all would facilitate cooperation on single articles, which can be accomplished on the school's talk page. Horologium t-c 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all excluding high schools that establish notability by fame.--WaltCip 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per above. Categorizing by high school attended does not help Wikipedia, unilike categorizing by college attended, which has much more potential to be collaborative.VegaDark (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 29[edit]

Category:User blz and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians who understand blazon. Note that I am putting it in Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics, because it has to go somewhere, but ultimately anyone can edit to change the parent category. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Merge Category:User blz, Category:User blz-1, Category:User blz-2, Category:User blz-3, and Category:User blz-5 to Category:Wikipedians interested in heraldry, a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by interest.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for users who speak Blazon, which is not a language so much as a jargon, relating to heraldry. It's a set of highly structured rules for describing heraldic coats of arms or flags, rather than an actual language. Additionally, "blz" is the ISO 639 classification for Balanktak, which is (yet another) Indonesian language which does not yet have a Wikipedia article. Suggest merging all of these cats into one category and moving it into Category:Wikipedians by interest, which is a more appropriate target than the languages section.

Merge, as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Category:Wikipedians who speak Blazon~~ Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon per Blazon. (Or perhaps Wikipedians who understand Blazon.) This is more specific than just an interest in heraldry. - jc37 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [Modified target per discussion below.] - jc37 10:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had suggested the broader scope to potentially increase the collaborative potential of the category. It is likely that all of the members of this group also share an interest in heraldry; however, there might be editors who are interested in heraldry without sharing the more narrow interest in blazon. There is no current category for heraldry in Wikipedia (I looked before I suggested creating a new category), so slightly widening the scope of the topic increases potential interest without making it too diffuse to be useful. Horologium t-c 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. My main concern is from recalling a mess we had when deleting the zodiac cats. We should try to avoid miscategorising users when renaming. And I can imagine an argument that understanding Blazon does not necessarily equal being interested in heraldry in general. - jc37 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure that whatever the target cat is named, that it not include the word "speak", as it will open the door to move it back into the language cat. "Understand" is only a little better, for the same reason. I suggested "interested in" as that is the convention for all of the subcats in Category:Wikipedians by interest, which seems (to me) to be the logical place to move it. If you like Category:Wikipedians interested in Blazon, which sounds clunky to me, I'll support it, but my first choice remains the heraldry cat I suggested. Horologium t-c 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree that we shouldn't use "speak". I would prefer Wikipedians who understand... for the "almost language" cats, such as glyphs, writing systems, jargon, dialects, and such. I used to lean towards use, and even recently have wavered between use and understand, but understand seems the clearest and most precise. - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and keep. "speak" doesn't bother me, as it is possible to speak the descriptions aloud, but any other term would do. DGG (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC) ----- relisting to try to get consensus on the new name[reply]

Comment - Ok, as I said above, I prefer Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon. I agree with the concern about using "speak", and I oppose the use of "heraldry", and also oppose "interested in". - jc37 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can support Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon, provided it is moved out of Category:Wikipedians by language. My suggestion would to be to move it into Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics (a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by interest, my original suggestion), but it really doesn't belong in the languages section. Its vocabulary consists entirely of words from other languages (primarily French), and it is not possible to carry out a conversation using it, essentially failing it as a language; that is why I nominated it for a rename and move in the first place. Horologium t-c 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who understand Blazon per Jc37 and relocate to Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics per Horologium. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Relocating to Category:Wikipedians by language interest might be more appropriate, or even Category:Wikipedians by constructed language (or both). But where it goes is less important than the target name atm. In any case, I agree that it shouldn't be directly in Category:Wikipedians by language. - jc37 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 28[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who support Crewe Alex[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who support Crewe Alex to Category:Wikipedian Crewe Alexandra F.C. fans

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 27[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is counterproductive to encourage the formation of formal factions around points of disagreement. This category does not foster collaboration and there is no reason someone would need to browse through it. Editors who disagree with the current deletion policy and process should present their arguments to the community at the appropriate place (Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion process).

Please note that this discussion is not about censoring dissent or anything of that sort. Editors are welcome to dissent all they want on their userpages and on appropriate discussion pages (the village pump, policy talk pages, user talk pages, and so on).

Please also note precedents for deleting similar categories here, here, here, here, here and here. There is also ample precedent for deleting any "support/oppose" and "for/against" categories (see e.g. here, here, here, here and here).

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's basically a petition, not a category. There are better ways to do that. - Richfife 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Linked article is to a meta discussion that has been around for years, and will never become policy. Divisive. Horologium t-c 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all three of the above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - This doesn't a support/oppose a current policy, and it's a semi-active discussion. (As opposed to the several discussions linked in the nom for examples.) I think using a category for an active discussion should be fine. It would be hard to argue how this doesn't facilitate collaboration, as we do collaborate on policies and such. The reason for the Weak keep however, is that the discussion is only semi-active, and could almost be tagged [[tl|historical}}. - jc37 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took another look at the article linked by the cat (Pure wiki deletion). The last edit to that page was in July 2006, so it's not really even semi-active at this point. (The last comment on the talk page was in April 2007). More relevant to this community, however, is the link at the top of the article page, to en:Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system, which is a Rejected Proposal. (Discussion there was much more active and recent, ending when the discussion was marked as rejected in June 2007.) Without getting into a debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of this proposal, it was rejected, and having a category of users who support a rejected proposal seems (to me) to be both pointless and unnecessarily divisive. The userbox is sufficient to express support of the issue. (One can construct an argument that it too is divisive, but this is not the appropriate forum to discuss deletion of the userbox.) Horologium t-c 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete, since the page has been inactive for a few months. (I might dispute the "rejected" tag, but that would be about the page, not the category.) - jc37 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 26[edit]

Category:Users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by User:After Midnight per CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as duplicate of Category:Wikipedians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as recreated deleted content. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 4#Category:User Category:Users. This category was deleted as all-encompassing and redundant to Category:Wikipedians. It was recreated yesterday. Horologium t-c 15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 24[edit]

Category:Wikipedians not active on weekdays[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I can't think a single reason on why someone could look for Wikipedias not being active on weekdays. If they want to see a specific person that is he/she active on weekdays, a quick look on the userpage is enough. No category is necessary. ~Iceshark7 08:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is simply a notice. Notes, or even template notes are fine, but not a category. - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and jc37. Horologium t-c 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. If you're not available on weekdays, say so. No reason to join a group. - Richfife 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use a Tablet PC[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use a Tablet PC - (per Tablet PC) Cool, you've used a touchscreen. Personally, I've used a light pen, mouse, a keyboard, and a myriad of other input devices. And we can't leave out all the various Writing implements. Categories for everything. : ) - jc37 09:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unhelpful categorization. - Koweja 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as makes no difference to one's abilities or actions here what type of computer one uses, SqueakBox 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. We went through a big dustup over the Mac categories (which were retained after some pruning); the PC cats (by processor type) are up for deletion right now. I hate to use WP:OTHERSTUFF because it's deprecated, but some sort of balance is in order. If this (and the AMD and Intel cats) are deleted, I would suggest deleting the whole parent Category:Wikipedians by personal computer, which would consist solely of the Mac and its subcats. Those cats could be moved to Category:Wikipedians by interest as Category:Wikipedians interested in Macintosh computers or something similar. There are some differences between a Tablet PC and other computers beyond the obvious interface issues; different operating systems comes to mind immediately. Horologium t-c 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A clearer version of my proposal for the Mac cat: create a new category in Category:Wikipedians by interest entitled Category:Wikipedians interested in Macintosh computers, and make Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers a subcategory of the new cat. Note that this will be moot if the AMD/Intel cats survive AFD. Horologium t-c 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more in the line of using a tool. Compare to Wikipedians who:
drive automobiles

ride bicycles

use shovels

shoot guns

eat with a spoon

use a comb or brush

wear shoes

sit in chairs

use ladders

etc.
These are generic items that potentially anyone might use. We may have articles on the objects, but such categories have the potential of being "all-inclusive" (especially in a post-industrial age world of mass production). And the usefulness for insight into research is dubious. Incidentally, such generic objects (as opposed to more specific objects) are also the most likely targets of an "interested in" category, since an action with the object in question doesn't provide much more of a unique notworthy experience than just being interested in the object in question. (As opposed to works of art/media in which experiencing them can be notable - such as a book, a painting, a sculpture, a video game, a radio programme, or whatever.) If we were allowing Wikipedian categories for anything with an article, then it might be justified, but the current concensus seems to be to minimise "user cats" to more specific, and less general, subjects/objects. As for Mac users, it's a specific brand of computer, rather than just a "generic" PC. We shouldn't have any of the myriad brands of IBM compatible PC clones, but individual, more specific computers such as the Macintosh would seem to make sense. (I am not opposed to the discussion being moved to the talk page, if wished.) - jc37 10:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that we will end up with a similar situation to what occurred with the deletion of Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, whereupon a rather POINTy nomination was made (by an editor who had been a member of the heterosexual cat) of Category:Gay Wikipedians, shortly followed by a deletion nomination for the entire parent cat, Category:Wikipedians by sexuality, which was deleted, although some of its children were pulled out first. My point is that we should not have a category with only one subcat in it, and the meta nature of Category:Wikipedians by personal computer prevents anyone from joining that category unless they are in a subcat. (In fact, the parent cat was created specifically to preclude such an occurance; you were the editor who suggested it, in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/April 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers.) If nothing else, delete the parent cat, and move the Mac category up, although in any case, there will be repeated efforts to create a PC-based equivalent to the Mac category. Horologium t-c 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 22[edit]

Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G.[edit]

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

The result of the debate was moved to WP:CFD-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete This category contains one page and one picture. I also do not believe it is appropriate to categorize articles/images based on who uploaded them. User are free to create a list in their user space.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion, not here. This is for user categories, found under Category:Wikipedians. Horologium t-c 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User galleries[edit]

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

The result of the debate was } moved to WP:CFD-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete This category contains one page and one subpage (nominated also for deletion above). This category is redundant with Category:User page galleries, a nd the one article in this category isn't even a "gallery" so no sense in merging.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion, not here. This is for user categories, found under Category:Wikipedians. Horologium t-c 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Montenegrin Language cats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete Category:User cg, Category:User cg-1, Category:User cg-2, Category:User cg-3, Category:User cg-4, Category:User cg-N, Category:User iš, and Category:User iš-N

Nominator's rationale: These separately created categories (which overlap) are for speakers of Montenegrin language, which is simply Serbian spoken in Montenegro (which recently divorced Serbia). There is no ISO 639 classification for Montenegrin, and (according to the Montenegrin language article) the official language of the country is Serbian. I would suggest deletion of these categories until some official recognition of the language is developed. (Preferably an ISO categorization, but right now even the government of Montenegro does not recognize Montenegrin as its own language.) "cg" and "iš" are not valid ISO 639 categorizations.

Delete all as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. At least the existence of ISO code for Montenegrin language should be the requirement for the category to be revived. --Biblbroks 's talk 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There's really not much to add I think :) -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User fjh[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rename Category:User fjh to Category:User hif

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Fiji Hindi, a variant of Hindi spoken on Fiji. The category notes that fjh is not an ISO 639 classification. "hif" is the correct ISO 639-3 classification for this language.

Rename, as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to standardise with the remaining Babel cats, almost all of which use ISO 639 codes. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ye and subcat[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete Category:User ye and Category:User ye-3

Nominator's rationale: These two cats are for speakers of Yeshivish, which appears to be a category invented by a single writer in a single book. This is not an ISO-recognized language, although it appears to have a lot in common with Yinglish, which DOES have its own ISO 639-3 classification of "yib". (Ethnologue notes that Yinglish is a second language only, as all of its speakers also speak English. Just trying to head off the creation of Category:User yib-N.) I'd suggest a rename, but looking at the Talk:Yinglish and Talk:Yeshivish makes me think again. (The heated debate in there made me pull this cat out of the group nomination below, because I suspect it will generate a lot more discussion than those). I think it might be better to nuke this unrecognized cat, and leave open the possbility of creating some "yib" cats, possibly merging together the two articles under the "Yinglish" banner (although the Yeshivish article is far superior in quality, it doesn't have the international seal of approval of Yinglish).

Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. No official recognition, as in the case of Category:User cg and its subcats, is a reason strong enough. The creation of Category:User yib could sort things up in the future. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly real and important dialect in NYC. The article in WP may be based on a single book, & the word may even have been invented, but the term & the dialect (or whatever) is now in widespread use. There are many more sources. There are also a good number of WPedians who could usefully describe themselves here. Yinglish is a great deal more general--a great many people speak it to some extent, most of whom are way too secular to even understand what Yeshivish is about. There is a serious need for collaboration in articles related to these subjects. I'd support keeping the levels--there are adepts who use it every day, and people who just understand a little. DGG (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete ~~Weak delete~~. The usefulness of the Babel cats comes not from the ability to speak a language but from the ability to translate it (at least as far as collaboration on en.wikipedia goes). Since this is not an ISO-recognised language, I think we should avoid setting a precedent for allowing inclusion of any thousands of constructed languages. I'm hesitant to try to draw a connection between the ability to speak a language and an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the language. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to delete after re-reading the nomination and seeing that Yeshivish is "not an ISO-recognized language". — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User als and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was depopulate for repurposing. Admin will depop, expecting that nominator or other users will take care of the repurposing/renaming/etc. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Note: These categories have not been flagged for deletion/merge/rename, because I was unable to determine the appropriate flag. Suggestions would be appreciated.)~~

Suggest depopulate and rename as Tosk Albanian, not Alemannic.

Nominator's rationale:This is a textbook example of why some type of standard should be applied to naming cats. "als" is the ISO 639-3 classification for Tosk Albanian, spoken in Albania (naturally). However, none of these cats have anything to do with Albanian. Instead, they are for Alemannic German, which has four separate ISO 639-3 classifications, of which it appears that all four have been mixed together and tossed into another language's spot. Since there are over 130 people in these seven categories (yes, there is a -0 cat), my suggestion would be to depopulate them, recreate them as Albanian Tosk categories (to prevent their recreation as Alemannic cats) and have the users create appropriate cats under the four Alemannic language groups (of which it is likely that one will never be used—it's a classification for an Venezuelan variant), and it's probable that most of them will want GSW (Schweizerdeutsch, or Swiss German). The category description specifically mentions all four variations of Alemannic, so it's not obvious which flavor each user wanted when they grabbed the userbox, and simply renaming the cats as "gsw" cats might put some people in the wrong cat. I also would suggest deletion of the asinine Category:User als-0, which somehow was missed in the earlier purge of -0 cats.

Depopulate and rename as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ until this below is resolved:
- Comment How does one depopulate the category? Manually remove all the 100+ users from the category (by removing the userboxes from their userpages) or how? But more importantly: shouldn't the category be tagged with the {{cfr-user}} (Template:cfr-user) template? --Biblbroks 's talk 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot can go in and remove all users from the category easily enough. The reason it's not tagged (as noted at the top of the nomination) is because I'm not sure how to tag these for my proposal. The cats are not being renamed, merged, or deleted, they're getting emptied and repurposed or recycled. The cats are not going away, they are just going to be used for something different than what they are being used for now. If you have a suggestion of what template to use for that, I'm open to suggestions. Horologium t-c 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly all the users from the category would lose their babel userboxes for als and have none instead - no other supstitute like gsw? If the answer is yes, I will change my vote to Depopulate and rename as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will not affect the userbox, only the category. The userbox deletion would have to be discussed at TfD, as it's a template. (No userboxes are removed through UCfD actions.) If this is approved, I will submit a TfD for the template (rather than a simple repurpose) because it's tied to the Alemmanic category. However, I shouldn't submit a TfD until this is approved; the actions need to be sequential. For all of the renames, I will go through and fix the userboxes associated with them by renames, but I haven't decided if I should submit the userboxes for deleted cats for deletion as well. I'm a lot more tolerant of nonsense on user pages, as long as it stays out of the categorization section. Horologium t-c 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neutral to the discussion. When proposing a cat for CfD discussion, and unsure which tag to use, typically just default to the "cfd" one. In this case cfd-user. Navigation and alerting those who may be interested by the tagging is the more important aspect. - jc37 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and flagged all seven cats with {{cfd-user}}. That should settle that issue. Horologium t-c 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok. And since the tagging occurred on the same day, I don't see a reason to relist either. - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate and rename as nom. It has been resolved. I hope that the delay, which I have created with bureaucratic issues, will help clear potential confusion with similar actions in the future. It helped me. :-) --Biblbroks 's talk 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-ISO dialects (3)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete Category:User jer and Category:User jer-1

Nominator's rationale: These two categories are for speakers of Jèrriais, a dialect of French spoken on the island of Jersey in the English Channel. This is not an ISO-recognized language, and it has no official status anywhere. "jer" is the ISO 639 classification for Jere, a Nigerian language in the Benue-Congo languages family (part of the Kainji family, which is still redlinked).

Suggest Delete Category:User hess, Category:User hess-1, Category:User hess-2, Category:User hess-3, and Category:User hess-N.

Nominator's rationale: These four cats are for speakers of Hessian, a dialect of German spoken in the state of Hesse. This is not an ISO-recognized language, and it has no official status anywhere. The names of the cats are inconsistent with the parent category's naming conventions as well.

Suggest Delete Category:User portunhol

Nominator's rationale: This is for Portunhol, a mixed language of Portuguese and Spanish, spoken along the border of Brazil and Uruguay. This is not an ISO-recognized langauge, and it has no official status anywhere. As with the "hess" categories above, the category's name is inconsistent with the parent category's naming conventions.

Delete all, as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none Redirect Hessian to Deutsche. Two redirections for Jer: en or fr. Two redirections for portunhol: es or Portuguese (pt?). BrewJay 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hess Germanic languages fit into ISO-8859-1, much like Ebonics, and isn't the name of the province close enough? [email protected] 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hessian is not a recognized variant of German, much as (recently deleted) New Yorkese is not a recognized variant of English. There may be a few minor pronunciation differences, and a few words that are local in origin and usage, but it's the same language. There is no ISO recognition, and the convention in Category:Wikipedians by language is to limit the categories to recognized languages. There are several thousand ISO 639-3 classifications, including roughly 20 variations of German (see Ethnologue's report on Germany, which includes ISO 639-3 references to all the listed languages; "Hessian" is listed under "German".) Hessian has no official recognition or acknowledgment in Germany or anywhere else. The same holds true for Jèrriais and Portunhol, all of which use standard Latin characters (well, Hessian has ß, which is usually included in character sets), which addresses your first concern. Horologium t-c 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that deletion is still an error. The appropriate thing seems to be redirecting Hessian to German and forcing them to apply to the ISO for recognition. The choice for Jerrais and Jersey, though, is a fork. Either French or Anglais. I see no compelling reason not to accept this convention. A lot of people of these crosstalk languages will choose both.BrewJay 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The usefulness of the language categories lies in the ability to translate information. When two dialects are mutually comprehensible, there is no need to have separate categories for both of them. Minor differences in speech in different provinces, districts, cities, or neighbourhoods are interesting for study, but do not need to be captured by individual user categories. Such overcategorisation only serves to reduce the usefulness and navigability of the general "Wikipedians by langugage" categorisation scheme. Moreover, since templates and categories have stringent and specific naming conventions, redirects are generally not necessary. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is legalese or law a dialect?[edit]

I've seen this question come up. (I've seen "law" under "fake languages", somewhere). No, it isn't a language of its own. It's "Latin", and Doctors might appreciate being in that same category with Lawyers, so if the category comes up again, then I think it should be redirected, because they deal with each other and sometimes they can converse in person with this stuff. I translate it to plain English where I can. Hear the word "Jargon" carefully. I think someone made that sound foreign to Ingglish. I would call the category "Latin Jargon", but it's a dead language that doesn't change, because people don't use it, unless they want a static, but portable name for something (like a precedent or a disease), AND I'm wary of creating categories under wikipedians by language. I'm glad there's a constructed language category. Hmmm. Nah. I'd hav to write and promote a dictionary. Webster had to take back some of his revisions. I don't. BrewJay 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ke and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Merge Category:User ke to Category:User grc, Category:User ke-1 to Category:User grc-1, Category:User ke-2 to Category:User grc-2, and Category:User ke-3 to Category:User grc-3.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Koine Greek, a slightly "younger" version of Ancient Greek. Ethnologue classifies it as a variant of Ancient Greek, which has the ISO 639-3 classification of "grc". "ke" is not a valid ISO classification. Suggest merging all of the ke cats into their equivalent grc cats. Alternatively, delete all of them.

Merge or Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oppose merge, since that wasn't the creator's intent. The users involved can always add themselves to grc. - jc37 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without meging per Jc37. It's always easier for a user to self-categorise than for others to remove a category, so we should err on the side of under-interpreting any possible similarities. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 21[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use Clusty[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category for users of a particular search engine does not foster collaboration any more than similar categories for Google and Yahoo!, both of which were deleted (discussions are here and here). Merely using a particular search engine implies neither an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject nor access to sources about it. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and precedent. Horologium t-c 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per deletions re google etc, SqueakBox 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use computers with AMD processors[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who use computers with Intel processors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a particular processor in your computer does not foster your contribution in any way. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really wanted to say weak keep, but I really can't. Though there are many articles related to the two companies and their products, the use of the processors are too widespread through Wikipedian users (creating a nearly all-inclusive grouping with the two cats). - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with the proviso that deletion of these two categories and the Tablet PC category nominated above should trigger a deletion of the entire Category:Wikipedians by personal computer category, which will consist of one one category, for Macintosh users. That category, which survived a UCFD in June, should be moved over to Category:Wikipedians by interest. A new category could be created there, entitled Category:Wikipedians interested in Macintosh computers, and the existing category can be moved over as a subcategory of the new cat. No fuss, no muss, and everyone is happy. Horologium t-c 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As already noted by Jc37, these categories are simply too broad to be of any real collaborative value. I also support deletion of entire Category:Wikipedians by personal computer, but do not agree with the proposal to rename a "Wikipedians who use" category into a "Wikipedians interested in" category. Except in a few rare cases (e.g. specialty items), I think that the connection between use and interest is a weak or non-existent one. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reasoning above at the Tablet PC Discussion. FWIW, the AMD category might be tailored enough to be appropriate in scope, although I think that might limit its effectiveness as a collaborative aid to the single AMD article. Horologium t-c 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More Nonsense -N cats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete the following five cats:

Category:User cu-N (Old Church Slavonic, dead for centuries; cat empty except for templates.)

Category:User gmh-N (Middle High German, dead for centuries; cat empty except for templates.)

Category:User got-M (Gothic, dead and misnamed to boot. One user in cat, who has 23 language userboxes on userpage.)

Category:User tlh-N (Klingon; 'nuff said.)

Category:User wam-N (Wampanoag, extinct for over a century. One user in cat, with 28 language userboxes on userpage.)

Nominator's rationale: These are more of the nonsensical -N categories (I think these are the last ones, but I haven't gone through all of the child cats in the languages thing yet.) They should all be eliminated. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Neutral to the discussion) - The rationale for Klingon is different than the other three (dead vs contructed), and probably should have its own nomination. - jc37 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to limit the number of new discussions I opened, considering the confusing array of side discussions caused by the freaky formatting of my previous (enormous) batches of nominations. Since all of these categories are -N (or -M in the one case) cats, I grouped them together. I can pull the Klingon one out and re-nominate it separately if required, but I really don't think it will be necessary. If another editor concurs with your suggestion, I'll do so. Horologium t-c 15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klingon, Delete rest. The Klingon language culture has a specific user base associated with it, and I think it is important to keep them identified. Additionally, there used to be a Klingon-language Wikipedia. If an Wikipedia editor wants to translate any resource in Klingon into English (yes, I know, there are very few) OR confirm information about the language (whether or not there is a verb "to be"), they should be able to find users who can help them. samwaltz 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there may be a Klingon Wikipedia, it's not a Wikipedia project; it's on Wikia, which is off-project and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. (It was shut down here in 2005, and isn't particularly active at Wikia, with only 5 editors contributing 13 edits in the past month.) Further there are *no* native speakers of Klingon, at least not on Earth in 2007. The four users in this category (one of whom hasn't edited in over 18 months) can move to Category:User tlh-4 and join the seven users there if they have a burning need to keep a category on their page. Note that the deletion concerns only one of the five Klingon language categories; I'm not advocating nuking the entire set, only the ridiculous -N category. Horologium t-c 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, understood. Works for me. Delete 'em all. samwaltz 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More Category Renames[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename the following cats:

Category:User osm and child cats Category:User osm-1, Category:User osm-2, Category:User osm-3, and Category:User osm-N to Category:User ota, Category:User ota-1, Category:User ota-2, Category:User ota-3, and Category:User ota-N. The users speak Ottoman Turkish. The ISO 639 classification for that language is "ota" ("osm" is not a valid ISO 639 classification).

Category:User mth and Category:User mth-N to Category:User mai and Category:mai-N. These cats are for users who speak Maithili, but "mth" is the classification for Munggui (no wiki article yet), an Indonesian language. "mai" is the classification for Maithili speakers.

Nominator's rationale: To standardize classifications. The Maithili cats are occupying the spot for another language. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. I don't understand how the error could hav been made. I could understand otm, but then I was looking forward to having .can at the end of my domain name, and I got a chuckle out of .iq instead of .ik BrewJay 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ith[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete this cat.

Nominator's rationale: This category is for the constructed language Ithkuil, and is entirely populated by users with {{User ith-0}} on their userpages. Since the article says that nobody can speak the language (rolls eyes) and this is entirely populated with -0 users, I would suggest deleting it outright. Leave the userbox for those who want it (although I don't see the point behind any of the -0 userboxen). FWIW, there is no ISO classification for this language, and "ith" is not a valid ISO classification. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Misnamed, as noted in the nom. And since most of the other 0-level cats (and the wanting to learn more languages cat) have been deleted, this one should too. - jc37 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ury[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete this cat.

Nominator's rationale: The userbox reads Uryuomoco is a fictional language in the webcomic El Goonish Shive which actually is a complicated substitution cipher of regular English. There is no article for Uryuomoco, no discussion of the "language" in webcomic's article, and it's not a language but a cipher. "ury" is the ISO classification for another obscure Indonesian language called "Orya" (not Oriya), while "Uryuomoco" is non-notable fancruft. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User mvs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete this cat.

Nominator's rationale: this empty cat (only userbox templates) is for users who speak Creek language (Mvskokee in that language). However, the ISO classification for Creek is "mus"; mvs is for the Papuan language Massep. Since there are no users, deleting the cat is the easiest solution. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It may also be worth the effort to move the templates to their appropriate name ("mus" instead of "mvs") to encourage proper recreation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User heb and subcat[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge Category:User heb and Category:User heb-N to Category:User Hebr-5

Nominator's rationale:Category:User heb and Category:User heb-N are for users who fully understand the Hebrew Alphabet. Category:User Hebr-5 is for users who have full understanding of the Hebrew alphabet. Suggest merging the two heb categories into the Hebr-5 category, which is in Category:Wikipedians by writing system and follows the conventions of that category. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both as nom. Horologium t-c 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:User Hebr-5. This is another case of the base template categorising into both the parent and the "native" categories. However, the wording of the userbox does not explicitly suggest a "native" understanding, so Hebr-5 is the best target, as suggested by the nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 20[edit]

Category:Communist Wikipedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see discussion of August 10th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. This is, in principle, identical. Wikipedia is not a political forum or a place to form ideological factions. Individual editors can still express their views without having to be classified in categories. As far as collaborative potential goes ... there's little. The likelihood that a random subscriber to a random ideology will have access to reliable sources about that ideology is, in my view, too small to make these categories useful. The connection between affiliation and interest, though probably slightly stronger, is still not readily apparent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. This category was removed from the wikipedians by political ideologies cat in May by a user who noted that it was in two cats, one of which was a child of the other. a subsequent removal from the child category (probably from one of the UCFD noms) left it as an orphan cat, which explains why it was missed during the last deletion cycle. Horologium t-c 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. I think that every userbox representing extremist political factions should be deleted, not per se but because they often tend to be used in a way that emphasizes political belonging, and Wikipedia is not the right place for this. -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 19[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who support non-commercial use images[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is counterproductive to encourage the formation of formal factions around points of disagreement. This categories does not foster collaboration and there is no reason someone would need to browse through it. Editors who disagree with criterion I3 of the speedy deletion policy should present their arguments to the community at the appropriate place (Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content).

Please note that this discussion is not about censoring dissent or anything of that sort. Editors are welcome to dissent all they want on their userpages and on appropriate discussion pages (the village pump, policy talk pages, user talk pages, and so on).

Please also note precedents for deleting similar categories here, here, here, here and here. There is also ample precedent for deleting any "support/oppose" and "for/against" categories (see e.g. here, here, here, here and here).

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as highly contentious, SqueakBox 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing the interpretation of the policies is always a possibility, and it is perfectly legitimate to advocate this in a reasonable and non-disruptive way, as long as one is willing to work by the existing rule. This even extends to core policy--even foundation policy can change--it has in the past.This is about the least disruptive way possible.-- merely placing oneself in a group that has the view. Considering the disruptive that does occur in WP, this is truly trivial. DGG (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another divisive user category arguing about a core policy. The userbox is sufficient to convey the support of the issue. The first group of deletions cited by Black Falcon clearly demonstrates that this category should be removed. Discussion about the policy itself does not require a category for collaboration, as such discussions should take place at the pages cited in the nomination. Horologium t-c 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mozilla Firefox extensions[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who use Adblock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox
Merge Category:Wikipedians who use CookieSafe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox

These are categories for users of a single extension of Mozilla Firefox; Category:Mozilla extensions currently includes upward of 50 such extensions. I think these categories are much too narrow in scope to be useful for collaboration. Merely using a particular add-on neither suggests an above-average knowledge of nor an interest in the subject. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. We don't need separate cats for extensions for a single browser. Horologium t-c 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The trouble with software is where to draw the dividing line between an individual piece of software and a "component". I think that we've determined in the past with game software that users of "plug-ins" should be merged with users of the main program. This looks like the same thing. - jc37 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Browser extensions may be a different category, because they are very closely involved with the use of Wikipedia.DGG (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are the extensions of more use than just knowing the main program, in this case? - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 18[edit]

Category:Wikipedian Texas Tech Fans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Texas Tech Fans to Category:Wikipedian Texas Tech fans

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I created the page before I was familiar with the conventions on capitalization. →Wordbuilder 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, being a fan of a sports team does not foster contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it contributes to collaboration--who else pays attention? DGG (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you support the nominator's original proposal to rename? Horologium t-c 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. No strong feelings about retention, although it's less about a single team, as ^demon claims, and more of a fan of a university's entire sports program, which could be over a dozen separate teams. Horologium t-c 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Tar Heel Fans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian Tar Heel Fans into Category:Wikipedian North Carolina Tar Heels fans

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, being a fan of a sports team does not foster contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sure it contributes to collaboration--Not that every one of them does, but that the people who can contribute will be in that group --who else pays attention? DGG (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you support the nominator's original proposal to merge the two redundant categories? Horologium t-c 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. No strong feelings about retention, although it's less about a single team, as ^demon claims, and more of a fan of a university's entire sports program, which could be over a dozen separate teams. Horologium t-c 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian UFC Fans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian Ultimate Fighting Championship fans. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian UFC Fans to Category:Wikipedian UFC fans or Category:Wikipedian Ultimate Fighting Championship fans

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation and, perhaps, replace the acronym with the full name. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a fan of a fighting show does not mean one can contribute on it. We know very well the same logic applies for wrestling. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sure it contributes to collaboration--Not that every one of them does, but that the people who can contribute will be in that group --who else pays attention? DGG (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 17[edit]

Fake Language categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of fake (nonsense or joke) language categories still in existence on Wikipedia (we were not successful in the last purge, since some of them have names that appear at first blush to be legitimate); they should all be terminated. I have grouped them into a single nomination at the request of an admin, to reduce the number of closing actions that will need to be performed.

Category: User law and subcats[edit]

Propose Delete Category: User law, Category: User law-2 and Category: User law-3.

Nominator's rationale: These are joke categories, for users who speak "Legalese". "law" is the ISO 639-3 classification for Lauje, which is spoken by 44,000 people in Indonesia. The silly legalese categories should be deleted from Wikipedia, because they are occupying a space for a legitimate language. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Yes, it shouldn't use an ISO code. But there are 38 wikipedians in those categories, and they should be asked if they think it important, and what name they prefer. If we have to be a surrogate for them, I'd guess that they do think it important, and if leg isn't an ISO code, it might do. Otherwise something longer than 3 letters might be necessary. DGG (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually, it's 19 users, not 38, and every single one of them has one of the two userboxen on their page. Once again, this is a case of appending an inappropriate category to a userbox. There were a lot of users with the asinine l337, Random Babbling, AIM-able and Newspeak categories as well, and I doubt more than a handful even noticed when those categories were killed. None of them ever showed up at DRV. Horologium t-c 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but we probably shouldn't consider a "lack of action" to necessarily equate to "consensus". - jc37 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Legalese"? Knowing the bywords and catchphrases of a certain occupation typically doesn't mean that an actual "language" is involved. A userbox is fine, the category isn't. - jc37 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Horologium, Jc37, and ample precedent. For any users who are actually lawyers, there is Category:Wikipedian lawyers. For any users with an interest in law, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in law. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Confusion with the existing ISO code should be considered a serious mistake: if it was meant to be a joke, it shouldn't have obstructed other 44,000 people on the planet. This could be used as a warning for the future creation of similar unfortunate jokes. If they defined themselves as Legalese speaking users, and as such more lawyerly inclined, they should be more careful with obliging with the already existing rules and/or standards. Anyway, if any of the users in these categories notices that there is a vote for deletion, he or she can simply rename the category him/herself. --Biblbroks 's talk 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User das[edit]

Propose Delete.

Nominator's rationale: These category is for speakers of Dasprach, which is a constructed language that has apparently never had a Wikipedia article, and for which I received on 14 hits on Google, five of which were Wikipedia or mirrors. There is no ISO 639 classification for it, and "das" is the classification for Daho-Doo, which is spoken in West Africa. (It also doesn't have an article of its own, but it is referenced at Kru languages.) Should be deleted since it is misnamed and appears to be totally non-notable. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See first Category:User das-4 and then User:Antman/Taatsch. This would appear to be a user created language. Perhaps we should ask User:Antman for clarification. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User zb[edit]

Propose Delete this cat.

Nominator's rationale: This category is for speakers of Zlatiborian speech, which is a non-existent language which has been deleted twice at VfD; the original discussion was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zlatiborian speech. ("zb" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) I'll not nominate the userbox templates (all five of them) for deletion, although another bold editor might consider it, since the article they reference was deleted two years ago. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as nom. - Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Language Category renames[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few langauges in Category:Wikipedians by language which need to be renamed to align with their ISO 639-3 classifications. Since they should not be contentious (I am not asking to delete any of these, only rename them to match), I have consolidated them into a single nomination at the request of an admin, to reduce the number of closing actions that will need to be performed.

Category:User mnl and subcats[edit]

Propose Rename to Category:User dum. Apply same to Category:User mnl-3, and Category:User mnl-4.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Middle Dutch, which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "dum". ("mnl" is the ISO 639-3 classification for the Pacific Island language of Tiala, which doesn't have an article.) Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Would also suggest pulling it out of Category:User nl, where it was hidden. It has its own ISO 639 classification, so it should be at the same level as Dutch. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User kb and subcat[edit]

Propose Rename to Category:User krc. Apply same to Category:User kb-N.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Karachay-Balkar, which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "krc". ("kb" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User cj[edit]

Propose Rename to Category:User chn.

Nominator's rationale: This category is for speakers of Chinook Jargon, which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "chn". ("cj" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User ma and subcats[edit]

Propose Rename to Category:User arz. Apply same to Category:User ma-1, Category:User ma-2, Category:User ma-3, Category:User ma-4, and Category:User ma-N.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Egyptian Arabic (Masri), which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "arz". ("ma" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming. WP:Babel is meant to be an informal system for Wikipedia purposes. Almost all the languages listed use a descriptive 2-letter code. "Ma" is much more descriptive than a 3-letter code that starts with "ar", which would encompass more than 20 varieties. I see no need to complicate something simple and concise into something more ambiguous. In other words, no one would intuitively know that "arz" stands for Masri/Egyptian Arabic, whereas it's easier to see that "en" corresponds to English for example. — Zerida 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, Category:Wikipedians by language contains approximately 100 categories with three-letter combinations, and the vast majority of them use the ISO 639-3 standard (The two letter combinations are almost all covered by ISO 639-1). The ones I have suggested to change are ones that either are improperly categorized under the code for another language or using a code that does not exist under the ISO classfication system. "ma" is not particularly intuitive when looking for a speaker of Egyptian Arabic (which is where "Masri" redirects). And while it is true that there are other classification systems in existence (as you point out in another rebuttal), I am not aware of any system that uses "ma" for Masri, or "lk" for Lakota, or "ly" for Libyan Arabic. The ISO 639 system is the recognized standard for linguistic classification (see ISO), which is used by SIL, and there is no compelling reason to have categories that do not match with the internationally acknowledged standard. Horologium t-c 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Category:Wikipedians by language contains approximately 100 categories Which points to the fact that the majority use 2- rather than 3-letter codes. 3-letter codes are usually substituted in cases where a 2-letter code is already in use, and further disambiguation is required. In this case, however, no further disambiguation is needed when there is a perfectly useable and pertinent code available. It would be required if "ar" were to be used, which is why it is not necessary. While 639 may be one of a number of international standards, it is not required for the purposes of WP:Babel in the way that, for example, IPA is the transcription standard on Wikipedia. Therefore, saying that they are "improperly categorized" is presupposing that this is how they must be categorized, which they don't. There is, however, precedent to keep things simple in an otherwise informal system made for user- rather than mainspace. — Zerida 04:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per my comments in the section for "lk"/"lak" (Lakota). There are too many other languages that "ma" could be confused for. It's better to stick to one defined standard (in this case, ISO 639). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User ly and subcats[edit]

Propose Rename to Category:User ayl. Apply same to Category:User ly-1, Category:User ly-2, Category:User ly-3, Category:User ly-4, and Category:User ly-N.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Libyan Arabic, which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "ayl". ("ly" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to conform to international standards, the best way to ensure consistency. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming per my comment above, and also the SIL three-letter coding system is not the only international standard. There are other systems. — Zerida 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see my response above, which addresses the classification issue; it's not SIL's system, it's the ISO system that SIL uses. Horologium t-c 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Responded above. I mentioned SIL because that's where the codes in the language infoboxes would always link to [1]. — Zerida 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per my comments in the section for "lk"/"lak" (Lakota). It's better to stick to one defined standard (in this case, ISO 639). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User lk and subcats[edit]

Propose Rename to Category:User lak. Apply same to Category:User lk-1, Category:User lk-2, and Category:User lk-3.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Lakota, which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "lak". ("lk" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all six categories, as nominator. Horologium t-c 12:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming per my comments in the above two categories. — Zerida 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See my above response. Horologium t-c 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Despite Zerida's comments, I think that the best way to ensure ease of navigation is through standardisation. The use of multiple standards can only lead to confusion. For instance, I would have thought that "lk" had something to do with Sri Lanka (there's no Sri Lankan language, but .lk is the ccTLD of the country). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument can be made for "arz" though; i.e., if I wasn't already familiar with this classification system (and most people aren't), I might think it had something to do with Azeri. — Zerida 19:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. But similarly "ma" could be confused with Macedonian, Malay, Manchurian, Mandarin, or any one of the several dozen languages that start with "Ma" listed at List of languages. That's why I agree with Horologium that standardisation is useful. It introduces clarity and leaves no room for dozens of different interpretations. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to mention Morocco. "ma" is the ccTLD for Morocco, which has its own version of Arabic (ary), which is not yet listed in Category:Wikipedians by language. Horologium t-c 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the languages mentioned by Black Falcon have their own codes listed at WP:Babel#M and Category:Wikipedians by language. But all this says is that there will always be a multitude of possibilities. In other words, if there is room for confusion either way, it is not sufficient reason to change a code that has been working well for the last 2 years to something with which most people are not familiar. A better argument to me, however, would be changing it to something that is equally or more intuitive; for example, in the case of Egyptian Arabic, something like "ea" or "ega" makes sense, as that would help provide ease of navigation (as opposed to "arz"). In the case of Lakota, "lk" to "lak" is not a huge change, although I think sticking to 2-letter codes whenever possible is ideal, also to avoid clutter on the user templates. After all, people are probably more interested in the template than the category. — Zerida 00:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You wrote: "there is room for confusion either way". Still, there is difference between adopting an official internationally-accepted standard and trying to make up our own codes based on what we think sounds intuitive. I think that the latter will only cause more confusion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Confusion for whom, the vast majority of users who have no knowledge of ISO 639? Also, 639 is an international standard, not necessarily internationally accepted. — Zerida 00:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right. ISO 639 is internationally available, not necessarily accepted. Still, I think more people will be aware of it (or be able to easily find out about it) than a standard that we invent. In addition, if all of the categories follow ISO 639, the category system becomes predictable, whereas that predictability is lost if we interject our personal naming conventions into various parts of the system. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, BF, you have maintained that switching to ISO would make it essentially easier to find, but I have yet to see evidence that this would be the case. On the other hand, I think it is quite clear that "arz" and "ayl" are not predictable for Egyptian and Libyan Arabic. It seems counterintuitive to switch to something more ambiguous -- the templates on the user pages don't link to SIL. And as I mentioned, ISO 639 is not an MoS guideline like WP:IPA. — Zerida 01:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what kind of evidence you would like. My contention is that checking 2- or 3-letter codes against an established standard is easier than trying to determine the meanings of codes invented by various users. When I wrote that standardisation makes the system predictable, I didn't mean to imply "predictable at first glance". Rather, I meant that it would become easy to decipher the language codes given the existence of a codebook of sorts. Finally, ISO 639 may not be a WP:MOS guideline, but ISO codes appear on the infobox for every language article (see Template:Infobox Language). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm aware of that and have already mentioned it in one of my responses to Horologium. It's still counterintuitive since one would have to have foreknowledge of the ISO language codes, and know what code corresponds to which language. Most users, of course, don't know that "arz" stands for Egyptian Arabic, there is hardly a connection. This will make it more difficult to find, not the other way around. It is also still important to point out that ISO classification is not an MoS guideline, therefore its preference over another system cannot be made on that basis. Something like that would need wider community consensus, which IPA has. — Zerida 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I might not know off-hand that "arz" stands for Egyptian Arabic but, if the categories are standardised, at least I'll know where to look. If necessary, we can add a description to the category page stating that all codes correspond to ISO 639 codes, with links to the lists of ISO codes (e.g. List of ISO 639-1 codes). That way, I won't be confused into thinking that "ma" is one of the 40 or so languages starting with "Ma" listed at List of languages by name#M. To me, a consistent/standardised navigation system is inherently more intuitive and user-friendly than an inconsistent patchwork where every creator gets to make up a personal language code. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The discussion is getting a bit circular, since we've already mentioned that for nearly every language with a certain code, there is a corresponding one with which it can easily be confused. Also, these templates are meant for speakers of the language, who are likely to search for codes that more closely correspond with the name of the language. Most ISO codes probably do, but many others don't. I would agree in principle with having a standard system, but as I said, the question of which one to use needs wider community consensus. I do not agree that ISO 639 is "inherently" intuitive -- I happen to find it quite obtuse at times, if the examples above are any indication. No one code will be perfect given the inevitable overlap, but "ma" is certainly more descriptive and less confusing than the 25 codes starting with "ar", and the 100+ codes starting with "a". At least, most of these actually have something to do with one or more of the names of the languages. At the end, we are talking about userspace here, which means users can always make up a template for personal rather than general use. I think this will likely be the case if we make it harder it find, so that would defeat the purpose of standardization. — Zerida 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since this seems to be partly a matter of personal style. I find it more intuitive to work by a single, fixed standard than to attempt to connect made-up codes with actual languages based on similarities which not everyone may recognise. The advantage of a single standard is that it is fixed and objective; user-created codes are not. On your final point, editors can create any personal template they like (in userspace), but that nearly unlimited freedom does not extend to the category namespace. That is, they are free to create any template they like, but they are not free to append categories to all of them. So, your concern can be addressed by deleting and merging (i.e. standardising) any redundant categories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm OK with agreeing to disagree of course, but I should point out that I haven't been arguing we should not have a standard. It's a question of whether ISO is the right one. As far as the categories are concerned, they seem to have been merely an extension of the language user templates, since one is automatically added to the category if one adds the template on her/his userpage. Category:User en, for example, was created only after Template:User en was created. The categories themselves don't have to correspond to ISO, but maybe this could be a launch point to have a standardized system become part of MoS. — Zerida 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The only reason I support standardising per ISO 639 is that it seems to be the most commonly used on Wikipedia. Also, most of the other language categories seem to conform to it. What alternate standard do you have in mind? You do bring up an interesting point ... if the categories are to be renamed, it could be beneficial to also rename their corresponding templates. That would further the goal of standardisation and also reduce the potential for confusion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        From a purely linguistic value, I have few qualms about ISO 639, but my concern here is again the fact that most users are not familiar with it and there is already enough complaining about the use of IPA on Wikipedia (though the anti-IPA arguments are not usually reasonable IMO). This language order poll might be relevant to this discussion. Most respondents seem to be split between those who support ordering using a two-letter ISO code and those who prefer using the local name of the language for the alphabetizing scheme. In terms of user-friendliness, I would choose the latter and it appears that this is the de facto ordering system for InterWiki links. I do appreciate the merits of using an international standard, just don't know if it's necessary for userspace categories. — Zerida 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I can certainly understand your preference. I have one comment, though. After looking through Category:Wikipedians by language some more, it seems to me that the absolute majority of categories follow the ISO 639-1 codes (de, en, fr, fi, fy, lt) and that the majority of the remainder adhere to ISO 639-3. If so, the 6 categories nominated deviate from a rather well-established norm since, for the most part, categories do not seem to be named based on how they sound: Gileki has the code "glk" rather than "gil", Neapolitan has the code "nap" rather than "nea", and Gheg Albanian has the code "aln" rather than "ghe" or "gha" or "gal". And there are many more examples. Thus, although ISO may not be a MOS-mandated standard, it seems to enjoy de facto prominence (at least in language articles and user categorisation). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) There were a total of nine renames that I have found (I added two more tonight, and am debating how to handle the last), and a few more that are non-ISO for deletion (I'll add them tomorrow evening). That is out of 273 categories in Category:Wikipedians by language, which argues extremely strongly that the ISO classifications are the standard. Of course, the banner at the top of the Category:Wikipedians by language page reads Most of these are identified by short ISO 639 names, but we'll ignore that for now and just work with the numbers we have. Horologium t-c 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to I suppose, since the issue centers mainly around those languages which don't have short ISO 639 names, hence the need for disambiguation. Of course, I wish there had been 639-3 codes that were not as ambiguous for these languages. The codes can also be contradictory at times -- one of your examples, Black Falcon, Neapolitan, has the code "nap" because it more closely corresponds to the native name of the language napulitano. On the other hand, Finnish, whose endonym is suomi, gets the English value "fi". In any event, since this is not an MoS style, maybe we should just leave it as "no consensus"? Otherwise, if userspace language categories are going to more strictly follow ISO classifications, it would be nice to have a more specific MoS guideline to work with. — Zerida 06:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to incorporating ISO codes into the Manual of Style. However, I'm not sure that it's necessary to create or modify a guideline for only 9 categories. I do agree with you that the 639-3 codes are at times ambiguous but still feel that having a mixed (i.e. unstandardised) system would only be cause for more ambiguity and confusion. Since we all seem to agree that standardisation is beneficial, it's only a matter of choosing a particular standard. Given that over 95% of categories use ISO codes, I think renaming the deviant cases to conform to ISO will, if nothing else, be the least troublesome option. Moreover, if actual practice is any indication of consensus in this case (and it isn't in all cases), then ISO 639 has significant support. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

-N level categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. It appears that users have already been moved to the respective -4 categories. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories are for -N (native speakers) of languages that are not appropriate targets. I have consolidated them into a single nomination at the request of an admin to reduce the number of required closing actions.

Category:User ang-N[edit]

Propose Delete.

Nominator's rationale: This is a -N category for Old English, a language which has been dead for over 800 years. Anyone who speaks this language as a native language probably doesn't reflect in mirrors, and certainly wouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia. This (apparent) joke category should be deleted. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are 5 WPedians in the category, at least some quite active, and they should be asked. Possibly they'll tell us to go ahead & delete it, which would settle the matter. I've asked them.DGG (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about this CfD, which closed as "delete"? That's grounds for a speedy, if I recall correctly. Additionally, I don't think that any of the users actively intended to have the -N category appended, as all of them are using the "basic" (no number) userbox; there are no users who have the -N userbox on their page. Horologium t-c 03:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't much of a "debate", and Consensus can change, after all. Neither do I think that this is a "joke" category. However, that said... - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the intention of the category's membership is that they are fluent in Old English, rather than native speakers thereof. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been speaking Anglo-Saxon since I can remember, having been taught it by my grandfather... I have more than an advanced grasp of the language, but I am not a 'native' per se... I used it for a lack of a ang-4 box. Best wishes, --It's-is-not-a-genitive 12:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:User ang-4, assuming that someone could create Template:User ang-4. If not, then no opinion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not averse to modifying ANY of the templates/userboxen that would be relevant to my nominations. It only takes a few seconds to change each; I could change all of my noms (assuming they are approved) in less than an hour. Changing the templates to match the categories is almost a given, although I admit I hadn't thought about it until now. I would suggest, however, that the category be depopulated prior to the name change, and have the handful of users in the cat select which of the remaining cats to move to (User ang-1, -2, -3, or -4). It's-is-not-a-genitive has already stated that he(?) wishes to belong to ang-4, which can be arranged as well. I will notify the seven users on their talk pages if this is approved. Horologium t-c 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a genuine native speaker of anglo-saxon and most celtic and old british languages. It certainly is not a dead language and there is no way on earth it is a dead language - there are (whether represented officially or not) at least several hundread speakers of old english here in England. (GowsiPowsi 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I can only go by what Wikipedia and other sources say, and they all say that it is extinct, supplanted by Middle English in the 12th century. As to a "native speaker", unless you spoke the language on a daily basis, I doubt that you qualify as a native speaker, and for what it is worth, you list yourself as a native speaker of 20 languages on your userpage, which is ludicrous. You may have a good deal of knowledge of them; you might even be able to contribute to the project in at a near-native level in many of them, but there is absolutely no way that you can be a native speaker of all of them, especially at the ripe old age of 25. Horologium t-c 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long live the language of the Anglo-Saxon, which has yet to be destoryed. Dbmoodb 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems to me in reading the above comments that this is less about the language in question, and more about a form of nationalism, or some such. If that's the case, such support/oppose categories have been deleted as of late, and this would just be one more. That aside, I seem to recall that we merged the native cats of the programmer lang cats to level 4. I think that would likely be the best solution here, and for other such "dead" languages which survive for scholars and pleasant rememberance only. - jc37 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully agree. If we can get a consensus to change it to ang-4, I will have no problem. As I noted, I can easily modify the userbox to reflect the change, and we won't need to depopulate the cat, since it appears that a significant portion of the users have weighed in. Horologium t-c 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ang-4 - fluency and being native in a language are two different things. People can certainly be fluent in it, but there are no native speakers of it. - Koweja 13:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how can most people say there are no native speakers when you are American??

Considering there are some places in England that have been almost completely unchanged since the dark ages, there are native speakers of anglo-saxon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GowsiPowsi (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 August 2007

Comment - Apparently the "base" language template (Template:User ang) was categorising users in both Category:User ang and Category:User ang-N, which is inappropriate. I removed the native inclusion from the template, which apparently emptied the category. The arguements above are moot, since none of the category's members were using a -N template for population (nor were any directly categorised by having the category directly on their user page). If someone would like to create a -N template and include in a -N category using it, then we can restart this discussion. Though I would suggest that a -4 of each be created instead to avoid such a debate (according to the current template, -4 is equivalent to "near-native"). In the meantime, this category may be deleted as empty. (Which I may do later, if noone beats me to it.) - jc37 07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User tokipona-N[edit]

Propose Delete.

Nominator's rationale: This is a -N category for Tokipona, a constructed language first introduced in 2001. It's not going to be a native language for anyone over the age of 8 or so, and as a language of precisely 118 words, it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever be a native speaker of the language, including its creator. While I question the utility of the other cats, I am not proposing their deletion, especially considering the tumultuous history behind the main article for this language. As a side note, someone who is skilled with tweaking userbox templates might consider adding a link to the main article for all of the templates for this language, as there is none at present, only links to the category pages. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both, as nom. Horologium t-c 12:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:User tokipona-N per nom - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move users into -4. as an artificial language, there are no native speakers, however people can be fluent in it, so they should be using Category:User tokipona-4 instead. - Koweja 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See my comment above under ang-N for a similar situation. - jc37 07:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as empty, per WP:CSD#C1. ~Iceshark7 08:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User bu and subcat[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - I very nearly closed this as: Merge/Rename to Category:Wikipedians who speak Bunjevac, which would address all the concerns below, and still retain the cat for Wikipedian use. (I have to mention that it would have been nice if the related article had some references that weren't all in foreign languages, not to mention most of the article's talk page...) Anyway, I'm closing this as delete, mainly because both cats are entirely populated from the same userbox and each resulting category has only (the same) 2 members. - jc37 07:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete or Merge Category:User bu and Category:User bu-4, to Category:User sr or Category:User hr.

Nominator's rationale: These two cats are for speakers of Bunjevac language, a Latin-alphabet based dialect of Serbian or Croatian spoken in parts of Serbia and Croatia. There is no ISO 639 classification for it, and it holds no official status anywhere. The external link on the Bunjevac language page is to a wordpress-powered blog, so I'm not sure of how much stock should be put into the claims of the article. My first choice would be to delete this pair of cats, but a merge to either Serbian (User sr) or Croatian (User hr) would be acceptable. ("bu" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Category:User sr or Category:User hr as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 'there is no ISO 639 classification for it, and it holds no official status anywhere'. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No ISO code --Biblbroks's talk 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment Merging cannot be a legitimate proposal here, when one proposes merge to two or more alternatives. In this case I would count Horologium's vote as a delete. I must emphasize that there can hardly be a consensus on which of the two Serbian or Croatian would be the destination of the proposed merge. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User sv-ros[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Recategorize as needed. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Rename Category:User sv-ros as Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket, as a subcategory of either Category:Wikipedians interested in games or Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics.

Nominator's rationale: This category is for people who play Rövarspråket, a Swedish language game. It sounds interesting enough, but it's not something that should be in the language category, particularly under Category:Wikipedians by constructed language, which is where it currently resides. Moving it to an appropriate parent category is easy enough, but it should be renamed to eliminate the possibility of it migrating back into the languages category, where it doesn't belong. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Move, as nom. My first choice for target cat would be Category:Wikipedians interested in games, as this is a game, but it doesn't fit neatly into any of the established subcats there. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Make a subcat of Category:Wikipedians who play language games; which itself should be a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in games, and Category:Wikipedians interested in linguistics. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket and move out of the spoken language super-category. - Koweja 13:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User crs and subcat[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename both to Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete Category:User crs and Category:User crs-4.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of Cockney rhyming slang, which is not a language or dialect as such, but rather jargon or slang (thus the name). It may not be intelligible to outsiders, but military jargon, "l337" slang or medical terminology are equally impenetrable, but not languages. There is no ISO 639 classification for it, and "crs" is the classification for Seselwa Creole French, which is spoken in the Seychelles. Should be deleted since it is misnamed and is displacing a valid, Wikipedia-listed language. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who understand Cockney rhyming slang ("understand" could be "speak" or "use", or whatever); which should be a subcat of Category:Wikipedians who play language games (described in the nomination above this one). - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Horologium. I'm not certain that "Cockney rhyming slang" qualifies as a language game. I'm also not convinced that such a category, regardless of where it's placed, would foster collaboration. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article Cockney rhyming slang, it's considered a word game. And it's listed on Language game. - jc37 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per jc37. It's not a real language so it shouldn't be presented as one. - Koweja 13:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User er and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all (but delete -N). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Rename or Delete to Category:User eur. Subcats, if retained, should be renamed as Category:User eur-1, Category:User eur-2, Category:User eur-3, and Category:User eur-4. Category:er-N should be Deleted under any circumstances.

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for speakers of the constructed language Europanto, which was created as a joke by an EU bureaucrat. Shockingly, Ethnologue has an entry for it, and has assigned it the ISO 639-3 classification of "eur". ("er" is not a valid ISO 639 category.) My first instinct is to incinerate it, but I'm willing to accept any valid arguments advanced to retain it. However, it should be renamed to follow the ISO 639-3 naming convention, and the ludicrous -N category should be deleted, as it is not a native language for anyone. <Crossing fingers and hoping we don't end up with the linguistic analogue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster category debate.> Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename, as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Seems valid enough. (And thank you for pointing me to the article - an interesting read : ) - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories for joke languages need not exist. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It has an ISO 639-2 classification. Delete the silly "native" cat though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if it has ISO class, it's fair game for a category, however it should use the ISO name. -N can be deleted as there are no native speakers. - Koweja 13:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User tu[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge to Category:User tcy.

Nominator's rationale: This category is for speakers of Tulu, which is assigned the ISO 639-3 classification of "tcy". ("tu" is not a valid ISO 639 classification.) The properly named category is already extant on Wikipedia, so it's a simple merge, as opposed to a rename.Suggest renaming to conform to ISO 639 classification convention. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as redundant and improperly named. - Koweja 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

British English dialects[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete ~~or Merge~~ Category:User ScE, Category:User en-gb-mcr, and Category:User en-gb-tyn ~~to Category:User en-gb~~.

Nominator's rationale: This grab bag of regional UK dialects is totally unnecessary. Mancunian (which is a redirect to Manchester), Scouse, and Geordie is overkill. ~~Merge them into the main en-gb category or~~ delete them outright~~, but make them go away~~. Note that this nomination does NOT include the ISO 639-3 recognized sco (Scots), only the unrecognized local dialects for Manchester, Liverpool, and Newcastle. The Cockney Rhyming Slang cats are also a separate nomination, because of a naming issue with them. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Merge to Category:User en-gb~~ as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion stricken, now support outright deletion only, as per jc37. Horologium t-c 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no benefit to merging. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, oppose merging. - While I suppose that they may be useful for directly related articles, or even indirect locational ones, this just doesn't seem like a good idea. jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Mixed English[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete Category:User Mixed English.

Nominator's Rationale: This is yet another English subcategory that has no real function. To quote the userbox: These users have been influenced by too many dialects of English to use one orthography, vocabulary and grammar consistently. It's vaguely interesting, but not really notable. Like the EFFP, Lazy English and en-oed categories, it doesn't really facilitate collaboration, as it's another category that other users will not search if looking for assistance. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The userbox is fine (it's an informative notice), the category isn't (except for statistical reasons, and for that, there is "what links here"). - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pointless category. - Koweja 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User en-oed[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete Category:User en-oed.

Nominator's Rationale: This is yet another English subcategory that has no real function. To quote the userbox: These users prefer Oxford spelling of the English language. It's vaguely interesting, but not really notable. Like the EFFP, Lazy English and Mixed English categories, it doesn't really facilitate collaboration, as it's another category that other users will not search if looking for assistance. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another in which a userbox notice is fine, but the category isn't. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless categorization. - Koweja 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in watching sports[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename and depopulate non-subcats. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not ESPN or Eurosport. A category for users interested in watching sports generally is far too broad to be useful in terms of fostering collaboration (putting aside questions over whether merely watching something implies an encyclopedic interest in it). In addition, none of the subcategories seem to have any direct relevance to an interest in watching sports. Please note that this nomination does not extend to any of the subcategories.

Upmerge all subcategories, remove all userpages, and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are a myriad of articles related to the categories and subcats. Hard to see how this doesn't foster collaboration. (After reading the last line of the nomination, I agree that the category itself should be depopulated, but all the subcats kept.) - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify one point: do you support upmerging the subcategories? It's not entirely clear where you want the subcats to remain. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the category name, I see the confusion. Consider my comments to be appended to include: Rename to Category:Wikipedians who watch sports, since it would be more accurate (and comparable to Wikipedians who read x, Wikipedians who play x, etc.). - jc37 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that category be effectively all-inclusive? I think few people never watch any sports. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category itself would be empty except for more specific sub-cats. Compare to Category:Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians by religion, and all the other Wikipedians by x cats. If it didn't sound so awkward, I might have suggested renaming to Wikipedians by watched sport : ) - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User languages-N[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a parent category for categories of native speakers of individual languages, all of which are already categorised elsewhere. It was created in early 2006 to supplement Category:User languages by level, a categorisation scheme that was abandoned a few months later. Categories for other levels were either never created or eventually deleted.

Delete as overcategorisation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. I had wondered why these categories existed; my question has been answered. Horologium t-c 16:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maruti Users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - If there was an organised grouping of Wikipedians by car manufacturer (similar to Category:Wikipedians by video game)... But there isn't. No prejudice against the possibility of such a system in the future. - jc37 06:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category for users who drive vehicles produced by Maruti Udyog does not foster collaboration. Merely driving a particular type of vehicle implies neither an interest in the subject nor an ability to contribute encyclopedic knowledge about it.

Delete as nom and per the precedent of deleting Category:Wikipedians who drive cars and its subcategories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The parent category to which this was added was an odd choice, FWIW. Horologium t-c 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Proofreaders al-en[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD C1 (see diff) and CSD G7 (see User talk:Ryangibsonstewart#Albanian proofreader/translator categories). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category uses the incorrect ISO 639 code for the Albanian language. I've already boldly created the proper category (Category:Proofreaders sq-en) with the appropriate template to prevent subpage issues. Just making sure there are no unforeseen objections. --- RockMFR 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken this belongs at WP:UCFD. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to include it here since it these cats aren't part of the Category:Wikipedians tree. If you'd like, I can move it over there. --- RockMFR 22:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they are meant to have user pages in them, I think UCFD is the place. If it's meant to have mainspace articles (people notable for translating Albanian into English, or below vice versa seems unlikely, but I have been wrong before), we can continue it here. I'll let you (and any other passers by) decide that: For the record: whether here or there, I agree with the proposal, and that below. Carlossuarez46 05:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: same as below, moved from CfD.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Translators al-en[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD C1 (see diff) and CSD G7 (see User talk:Ryangibsonstewart#Albanian proofreader/translator categories). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category uses the incorrect ISO 639 code for the Albanian language. I've already boldly created the proper category (Category:Translators sq-en) with the appropriate template to prevent subpage issues. Just making sure there are no unforeseen objections. --- RockMFR 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken this belongs at WP:UCFD. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: moved from CfD-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User EFFP[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete Category:User EFFP.

Nominator's Rationale: This category is for editors whose "English is Far From Perfect". It's a variation of the LE category, but does not imply the carelessness of that category. Nonetheless, it's not useful for collaboration; there is no reason someone would look through a category for someone with substandard English skills for collaborative efforts. Horologium t-c 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while there is indeed no reason someone would seek one of these individuals out for collaboration, i can how the category is useful for grouping together those whose edits need perhaps a higher degree of peer review than others. On the other hand, in such cases the people who would really need this category would rarely self-define. Could this category accept members via nomination and consensus? Or could this category be merged to one of the English language level cats? I would probably support that as well. Jdcooper 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, en-X categories serve this purpose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think Jdcooper's proposed use is all that constructive. It would take a significant investment of time to monitor the quality of edits of a particular group of users, time which could probably be better spent elsewhere. The idea of accepting members via nominations seems rather bureaucratic for what amounts to correcting grammatical and spelling errors. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another in which the userbox is fine for an informative notice, and which the category is not. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to categorize. - Koweja 13:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User LE and subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete Category:User LE and its subcats Category:User LE-2, Category:User en-L-1, Category:User en-L-3, Category:User en-L-4, Category:User en-L-5, and Category:User en-L-X.

Nominator's rationale: These cats are "Lazy English" cats, for those who can't be bothered with the niceties of grammar such as spelling and punctuation. They do nothing to further collaboration, and indirectly encourage a lack of editing standards. Horologium t-c 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Horologium t-c 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought all these fake language categories were cleaned up ages ago. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - and yet another in which the userbox is fine, but the category is not. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

American regional dialects[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Delete ~~or Merge~~ Category:User SoE, Category:User SoE-N, Category:User NE, Category:User NYC en, Category:User en-us-ca, Category:User AmE-CVS, Category:User en-ap-1, Category:User en-ap-2, Category:User en-ap-3, Category:User en-ap-4, Category:User en-ap-5, and Category:User en-ap-N ~~to Category:User en-us~~.

Nominator's rationale: This grab bag of regional US dialects is totally unnecessary. New England, New York City, Californian English (two different cats!) and 6 separate cats for Appalachian English is overkill. ~~Merge them into the main US category or~~ delete them outright~~, but make them go away~~. Horologium t-c 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Merge to Category:User en-us~~, as nom. Horologium t-c 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge suggestion stricken, as per argument presented by jc37 and seconded by Black Falcon. No longer support merger, just deletion. Horologium t-c 20:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~(first choice) or merge (second choice)~~ per nom. The usefulness of the Babel cats lies solely in the fact that they can assist translation. However, since the different variants of English are mutually comprehensible (especially in written form), separate categories and separate levels are not justified. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken my suggestion to merge per Jc37's comment below. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are dialect uses and forms and these will help find people who can deal with them, even though full translation is not usually required. The argument given might be OK for a partial merge tofthe different number levels for each dialect. DGG (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Different dialects of American English are mutually comprehensible, especially in written form, and no translation is required. Given the similarity, I don't believe there is anything to "deal with". — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and oppose merge, as it's not what the users intended, and would be superfluous. Delete for the same reasons as the British dialect cats above. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, English is English. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category: User en-au subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge all. Note that the 2 Aboriginal categories are unused and they can always be changed later. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge Category:User en-au-1, Category:User en-au-2, Category:User en-au-3, Category:User en-au-4, Category:User en-au-5, Category:User en-au-A, Category:User au-N, and Category:User en-au-N to Category: User en-au.

Nominator's rationale: This category really doesn't need to be babelized. It's nothing more than a dialect of English (not an ISO-659 recognized one at that), and merging them into one category will be sufficient to note that the editor uses Australian English. There is a severe overduplication of categories (which I made easier to see by moving some of the cats around into one parent category. I'd like to delete the whole category outright, but I don't think such a proposal would be supported by the community as a whole. Horologium t-c 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as nom. Horologium t-c 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User au-N should not be included here as it is a category for speakers of an Australian Aboriginal language. I note another category for the same purpose was removed. I agree about merging the others. --Bduke 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that Category:User en-au-A has a userbox on the category page that talks about "Aboriginal English" and I see that the one you removed from the nomination Category:User au is populated by a userbox that also populates one of the Australian English categories. This is a complete mess. I suggest that Category:User au-N and Category:User en-au-A be merged into Category:User au and when it is all done, we have a go at cleaning up the various userboxes. --Bduke 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including Category:User au, except Category:User au-N. The usefulness of the Babel cats lies solely in the fact that they can assist translation. However, since the different variants of English are mutually comprehensible (especially in written form), separate categories and separate levels are not justified. Any categories for dialects of English ought to be deleted. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lankiveil 03:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per nom. Separate country, comparable to US, UK, etc variant cats. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We could still do with one cat, not for translation, but to assist in community-isms. Giggy ^Talk 07:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all excluding none. Nonexistent ISO code for any. --Biblbroks 's talk 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Biblbroks ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not that it matters, I suppose, but I'm wondering why this wasn't included with the other "national" dialects of English below. Accidental oversight? - jc37 09:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"National" dialects of English[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge each group as nominated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(These were originally nominated separately, but at the request of an admin, I have consolidated them into a single group to reduce the number of required closing actions. I have not included the Australian group, as its comments differ substantially from the rest of the cats.)

These cats are all "national" dialects of English, spoken by inhabitants of entire countries. None of them have ISO 639 classifications, because they are all essentially the same language. As noted in my rationales for each, I'd prefer to delete them outright, but do not believe that such a proposition has sufficient community support at this time. As such, I am simply suggesting merging them into a single category for each country.

Category: User en-gb subcats[edit]

Propose Merge Category:User en-gb-1, Category:User en-gb-2, Category:User en-gb-3, Category:User en-gb-4, Category:User en-gb-5 and Category:User en-gb-N to Category: User en-gb.

Nominator's rationale: This category really doesn't need to be babelized. It's nothing more than the mother form of English (not an ISO-659 recognized separate language), and merging them into one category will be sufficient to note that the editor uses British English. I'd like to delete the whole category outright, but I don't think such a proposal would be supported by the community as a whole. Horologium t-c 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Biblbroks 's talk 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: User en-Ire subcats[edit]

Propose Merge Category:User en-Ire-N and Category:User Irish English to Category: User en-Ire.

Nominator's rationale: This category really doesn't need to be babelized. It's nothing more than a dialect of English (not an ISO-659 recognized one at that), and merging them into one category will be sufficient to note that the editor uses Irish English. I'd like to delete the whole category outright, but I don't think such a proposal would be supported by the community as a whole. It might also be a good idea to rename the category as Category:User en-ie (spelling and capitalization) to match the convention used by the rest of the cats in the parent. Horologium t-c 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: User en-ca subcats[edit]

Propose Merge Category:User en-ca-1, Category:User en-ca-2, Category:User en-ca-4, and Category:User en-ca-N to Category: User en-ca.

Nominator's rationale: This category really doesn't need to be babelized. It's nothing more than a dialect of English (not an ISO-659 recognized one at that), and merging them into one category will be sufficient to note that the editor uses Canadian English. I'd like to delete the whole category outright, but I don't think such a proposal would be supported by the community as a whole. Horologium t-c 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: User en-sg subcats[edit]

Propose Merge Category:User en-sg-1, Category:User en-sg-2, Category:User en-sg-3, Category:User en-sg-4, and Category:User en-sg-N to Category: User en-sg.

Nominator's rationale: This category really doesn't need to be babelized. It's nothing more than a dialect of English (not an ISO-659 recognized one at that), and merging them into one category will be sufficient to note that the editor uses Singaporean English (Singlish). I'd like to delete the whole category outright, but I don't think such a proposal would be supported by the community as a whole. Horologium t-c 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: User en-us subcats[edit]

Propose Merge Category:User en-us-1, Category:User en-us-2, Category:User en-us-3, Category:User en-us-4, Category:User en-us-5 and Category:User en-us-N to Category: User en-us.

Nominator's rationale: This category really doesn't need to be babelized. It's nothing more than a dialect of English (not an ISO-659 recognized one at that), and merging them into one category will be sufficient to note that the editor uses American English. I'd like to delete the whole category outright, but I don't think such a proposal would be supported by the community as a whole. Horologium t-c 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, as nom. Horologium t-c 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (first choice) or merge (second choice) per nom. The usefulness of the Babel cats lies solely in the fact that they can assist translation. However, since the different variants of English are mutually comprehensible (especially in written form), separate categories and separate levels are not justified. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 16[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Swing[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who listen to Swing to Category:Wikipedians who listen to swing music

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation and because "Wikipedians who listen to swing" just doesn't sound ... right. Meh. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nominator. A swing is a child's toy whereas swing music is a valid genre, SqueakBox 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Doom Metal[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who listen to Doom Metal to Category:Wikipedians who listen to doom metal

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename - per nom (caps). - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 15[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who play Xevious[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play the game Xevious to Category:Wikipedians who play Xevious
Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Black & White (computer game) to Category:Wikipedians who play Black & White
Rename Category:Wikipedians who play the Tony Hawk's Underground Series to Category:Wikipedians who play the Tony Hawk's Underground series
Rename Category:Wikipedians who play The Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series to Category:Wikipedians who play the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series

The first two should be renamed to standardise their titles. The latter two have issues with capitalisation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Though I hadn't considered it at the time of my nomination, I do not object to deletion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, playing a particular video game does not lend oneself to collaboration. I play Super Mario, doesn't mean I can write good Super Mario articles. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly endorsing collaborative writing. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,per Spebi. themcman1 _talk 13:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cant see how it makes for a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each category is useful only for a single article; the sentiment can be expressed through a userbox. Horologium t-c 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, though Speedy Rename per nom. We have articles on the above, and I would strongly disagree with the idea that experiencing a game means that you'd have nothing to contribute to an article about the game. You may know the creator's name, or when the game was released. This could help you with an online search for references about the game, and so on. Part of the point of "experience-based" user cats is exactly the enhanced ability for research and proofreading and so on. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who read sci-fi[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians who read sci-fi to Category:Wikipedians who read science fiction

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the categories is identical and the title of the latter conforms to the convention used for naming similar categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction and Category:Wikipedians who read detective fiction). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical, captain. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 09.08.07 2035 (UTC)
Support suggestion. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete. If you're going to get rid of all the Wikipedians by Fraternity/Sorority, you cannot possibly justify keeping Wikipedians who read sci-fi or anything else similar. WP:NOT#MYSPACE - Otto42 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See WP:WAX. AgentPeppermint 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nonsense. WP:WAX does not mean that WP:NOT#MYSPACE does not apply here as well, for the exact same reasons that it applied to the one I referenced. How exactly does this category existing for wikipedians endorse collaborative writing of an encyclopedia? - Otto42 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:WAX and other similar arguments are excuses not to think or make a logical argument.--WaltCip 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all other child categories of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. Reading a particular author or genre does not lend itself to contribution. Don't most American high school students read Poe? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Science-fiction is a broad genre and some would say a sub-culture of its own. Users who read science-fiction would be able to collaborate on a wide number of articles, not just book-related either (genre-wide). Collaborative potential is obvious.--Ramdrake 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But shouldn't the two be merged? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, absolutely, changed my input accordingly.--Ramdrake 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per nom. Do not support deletion of this cat. This is an appropriate category—clearly focused, yet not too narrow to frustrate collaboration. Horologium t-c 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, definitely, as described. In response to ^demon's earlier comment, I have to say that most high school students do, in fact, read Poe. For most of them, however, reading Poe in class is their first and last encounter with that author. Few have already been reading Poe for several years, and few continue reading Poe afterwards, let alone remember any of it ten years later. Note that the categories in question, however, are not titled Wikipedians who have read <whatever>. They are titled Wikipedians who read <whatever>. They refer to an active interest. As such, they are likely to attract users who have or know of resources related to those authors and genres. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the longer form, per nom. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subcats of Category:Wikipedians by photography style[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rename Category:Black and white photographers to Category:Wikipedian black and white photographers
Rename Category:Color photographers to Category:Wikipedian color photographers
Rename Category:Sepia photographers to Category:Wikipedian sepia photographers

User categories should always include "User" or "Wikipedian" in their titles, lest they be confused with categories for articles. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. themcman1 _talk 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per nom. Another set of renames that should not be controversial. Horologium t-c 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 11:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like red foxes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This is a category populated by a userbox that reads: "This user likes Red foxes." Merely liking a particular species does not imply either an encyclopedically-relevant interest in, above-average knowledge of, or access to sources about the subject. Consider also the fact that most people will have a liking to one or more creatures (I personally could easily list dozens of species and subspecies that I "like").

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who doesnt like red foxes? Well, chickes and other vermin I guess, SqueakBox 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration. The userbox is sufficient to note the appreciation. Horologium t-c 20:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by year of birth[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. The arguments to keep have not proven collaborative value. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes all subcategories:

Category:Wikipedians born before 1950
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1950s
Category:Wikipedians born in 1952
Category:Wikipedians born in 1954
Category:Wikipedians born in 1955
Category:Wikipedians born in 1956
Category:Wikipedians born in 1958
Category:Wikipedians born in 1959
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1960s
Category:Wikipedians born in 1960

Category:Wikipedians born in 1961
Category:Wikipedians born in 1962
Category:Wikipedians born in 1963
Category:Wikipedians born in 1965
Category:Wikipedians born in 1967
Category:Wikipedians born in 1968
Category:Wikipedians born in 1969
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s
Category:Wikipedians born in 1970
Category:Wikipedians born in 1971

Category:Wikipedians born in 1972
Category:Wikipedians born in 1973
Category:Wikipedians born in 1974
Category:Wikipedians born in 1975
Category:Wikipedians born in 1976
Category:Wikipedians born in 1977
Category:Wikipedians born in 1978
Category:Wikipedians born in 1979
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s
Category:Wikipedians born in 1980

Category:Wikipedians born in 1981
Category:Wikipedians born in 1982
Category:Wikipedians born in 1983
Category:Wikipedians born in 1984
Category:Wikipedians born in 1985
Category:Wikipedians born in 1986
Category:Wikipedians born in 1987
Category:Wikipedians born in 1988
Category:Wikipedians born in 1989
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s

Note: I have left a note with AMbot requesting that these 40 categories be tagged.

WP:NOT#MYSPACE and the category namespace is not appropriate for flushing out/supporting personal user profiles. These categories do not foster collaboration and are no more useful than the Wikipedians by generation and Wikipedians in their xxs categories that were recently deleted at CFD (a closure that was upheld at deletion review).

Given that Wikipedians come from so many national, religious, social, and other backgrounds, age cannot inform us about editors' interests. As far as access to sources, the connection is equally tenuous. Access to sources depends on so many other, more important factors. Take profession, for instance. A 70-year-old university professor is more likely to have access to an online journal than a tech-savvy 20-year-old who works in a fast food restaurant. A 20-year-old librarian is more likely to have access to the 1963 issue of a magazine than a 50-year-old construction worker. In addition to profession, there is also nationality, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and topical interest (which is unrelated to age).

A user category is only useful if someone might conceivably browse through it with the intent of contacting someone in the category to ask a question or suggest collaboration on a topic. These categories cannot be useful in that respect. How would you approach someone?

"Hello, you say that you were born in the 50s ... would you like to work on nuclear holocaust? I promise it'll be a blast."

"Dude, you were born in the 60s ... do you have access to any (sources on) cocaine?"

"Hey ... do you, as someone born in the 80s, want to collaborate on terrorism?"

"Yo, you were born in the 90s ... do you want to improve internet pornography?"

In short, I do not believe these categories hold any value, discounting that which may be artificially ascribed to them through stereotyping with regard to interest or what amounts to a hit-and-miss (mostly miss) attempt to connect age with access to sources.

Delete all as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep All except Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s and Category:Wikipedians born before 1950 which should be separated out so we have one for every year from 1907 onwards}} I'm a deletionist and this cool category IMO should absolutely be kept. Age is the mark of a person and while that may not fit comfortably with many of our our younger users I am putting it on my user page right now. But lets to keep it to adults, SqueakBox 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think deletionism has anything to do with it. I'm not a deletionist, but still I started this nomination. In any case, deletion of these categories will not suppress expressions of age; it will not result in the deletion of any userboxes or contextualised statements of age. People can readily express their age on their userpages ... what's the need for the categories? Why would anyone look for people of a specific age? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its my birthday so age is on the agenda and I would actually use it to look to see how old someone is ie I'd look at the user page not the category, and if it were used by enough people it could be a superb tool as IMO age counts The possibility of it working is enough reason to keep it. I mention my deletionist tendencies cos I have begun to go through bits of this list from time to time always voting delete at deletable categories and I think this has been my first keep! SqueakBox 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Happy birthday! As for the categories, that's part of my point ... one would look at a specific userpage to find out the age of a specific user. One wouldn't look through a category to find any person of a certain age. I think the idea of using the categories for statistical purposes (age counts) may have merit, but am wary of the reliability of any statistical results, given that inclusion in the category is voluntary and may not be representative of the actual Wikipedia population. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete per nom. Black Falcon is right, why would anyone want to browse for someone in an age group to be collaborative? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. Sometimes we like to reach out to Wikipedians in a certain age group, recently senior citizens. This has proven useful to us in the past. This might not make a difference to youngsters, but those of us over 40 appreciate knowing that there's others our age on board. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely my thought, SqueakBox 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When did you reach out to senior citizens? I am the only person in Category:Wikipedians born before 1950 and I'm not sure I want to be reached out to as a senior citizen, although I see no harm in these categories. ~~I have no strong views on this proposal.~~ --Bduke 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I modified my initial statement to say delete the before 1950's and replace with one for every year from 1907 onwards, the idea that people older than 57 are somehow odd in wikipedia let alone senior citizens gives a bad impression, SqueakBox 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created that one after the generation categories were deleted. I recall there were some by decade going back to the 1930s, and again I was the only editor in the 1930s category. Categories by year will mostly be empty. I am changing my neutral view and moving to delete. They serve no real purpose. --Bduke 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with note. Regardless of the usefulness of these categories, having someone's decade category deleted is going to demoralize the users who use this, and quite frankly we've lost enough good editors lately. Let them keep something. I know it's just an emotional appeal, but please just leave this one be? Part of the problem with "Wikipedians in their xxs" was that they'd have to change them often, this does not apply with these categories. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same (actually, a stronger version) could be said for articles. Someone who writes an article only to see it deleted will also be demoralised, but that alone is not a good reason to keep articles. The difference is that an article requires an investment of time and creative effort, whereas a user category takes seconds to create and is a minor thing that appears at the bottom of one's userpage. I have a hard time imagining that anyone has such a strong connection to a short string of characters on their userpage. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aye, but in the articles, end-users are going to see them. They get replicated and examined and relied upon for information. User categories are inherently of no interest to the passing reader who merely wants information. I'm afraid I'm an inclusionist where userspace is concerned, and a deletionist where poorly made articles are. Go fig. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not quite a userspace deletionist (I think I'm fairly selective in my nominations) but, in the end, I just don't see a purpose to these categories except to flush out user profiles. That type of use of non-userspace pages falls under WP:NOT#MYSPACE, since it does nothing that could not be done by a simple typed statement or userbox. A category is useful only if someone would need to browse through it. What reason is there to browse through these categories? An editor might want to know someone's age, but for that they would go to the userpage; they would not look for every person of a certain age. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you're going to delete this category, why have user categories at all? - Diceman 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, because other user categories (like the ones for profession, interest, place of residence, Wikipedia collaboration, and language ... that's about 2700 already) actually foster collaboration. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This absolutely helps to foster collaboration, IMO, SqueakBox 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do these categories foster collaboration? What relationship does age have with knowledge of a subject, interest in a subject, or access to sources about a subject? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are not helpful and they may encourage age discrimination. MessedRocker (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Against who? Younger people by older people? Older people by younger people? Seems a weak argument to me, SqueakBox 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and listify if you must). This is not the purpose of categories. The length of this discussion is quite depressing given the obviousness of the issue. -- Cat ^chi? 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- On a second thought this does not harm anyone (no one can argue that it is disruptive) and I do not see any real problem with it. One mans garbage is another's treasure I suppose. -- Cat ^chi? 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  - It's not actively disruptive, but I would argue that it causes some harm in terms of encouraging the MySpace-style use of categories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. No collaborative value. "Not harming anyone" is no reason to keep something like this around. --Kbdank71 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We don't need this kind of useless rubbish in category space. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet Why is knowing how old someone is rubbish? (especially when we have so many user cats that really are rubbish), SqueakBox 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In some contexts, knowing somebody's age may be important. A barman needs to know your age, as does a shop keeper if you ask to buy cigarettes, If you use public transport, being able to prove you are under 16 or over 60 may save you money. But I don't find your arguments or Cary's convincing. Kylu makes a plea to keep the categories in case deleting them drives good Wikipedians away, but really if they're that keen on telling everybody how old they are they can put their birthdates on their user pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful to categorize like this. Black Falcon is absolutely right. --- RockMFR 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my 19 months as a Wikipedian, I participated in only a handful of CfDs, but came to the conclusion that these 40 categories are in need of a fresh approach. As in the case of all Wikipedian categories, they are voluntary—all 463 Wikipedians who added themselves to these categories did so because they obviously wanted to categorize themselves in this manner and in these particular categories. I have never canvassed and am not about to start now, but I wouldn't be surprised if, upon learning of this CfD (with the noted exception of Bduke) the Wikipedians who willingly, voluntarily and deliberately placed themselves in one of these categories, would provide 462 "keep" votes. There are "serious" or "important" categories (Category:Wikipedian mathematicians) and ones that are less so (immediately above this one, Category:Wikipedians who like red foxes), but years of birth (and death [although, obviously, not applicable here]) are not trivia or "MySpace". Of the 16 categories which denote the absence of birth or death information, almost all have have been repurposed to talk pages with the noted exception of Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing. The consensus was that these categories elucidated "defining" knowledge about an individual and therefore belonged on article pages. In the case of the categories currently on the chopping block, "only" 463 out of hundreds of thousands of possible Wikipedians chose to add their names, but why should they be deprived of that choice? If a Wikipedian is curious about or wishes to know another Wikipedian born in the same year, is he or she supposed to check countless user pages for an indication of age? Only the fraction of Wikipedians who allow such information to be known, enter their age/year/exact date of birth on their user pages. Finally, since Bduke is alone in the, as he described it, "likely to be sparsely populated" category which he created two-and-a-half weeks ago, and now feels has no further use, I will, with quite proper chronology, add myself to his Category:Wikipedians born before 1950 for the, apparently, brief time that the category has to exist. —Roman Spinner (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may be overstating the issue somewhat. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people who "voluntarily and deliberately placed themselves in one of these categories" did so only because it was available and don't particularly care about the fate of a few characters of text on their userpage. You moreover note that year of birth is a defining feature; however, regardless of whether it is defining or trivial, does the category still not serve the purpose of complementing user profiles? ... A profile which could just as easily be substituted with a few typed words? It is this aspect, rather than the triviality or importance of birth information, that led to my "MySpace" claim. The sole purpose of these categories is to supplement user profiles; they do not categorise and organise articles and do not foster collaboration. I believe that editors should have wide latitude as to what they can do in userspace; however, if the community is to yield to individual preferences outside of userspace, where does it stop? What argument could you bring in to act against the "choice" of those users who like red foxes, who support Mitt Romney, or who like any random person, object or idea? If such MySpace-y categories are not to be retained, I think we ought to follow the objective criterion of collaborative merit rather than attempting to (subjectively) dictate to users which of their expressed attributes are "defining" or "important" and which are not. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can appreciate that under the provisions of WP:DEMOCRACY, consensus is sought through logic of argument and persuasion, rather than raw vote count. The first aspect, however, which catches the eye in these discussions are the bold keep and delete votes. By this standard alone, the numbers become an important consideration in the deletion debates. The "objective criterion of collabortative merit" should, indeed, be the overriding factor. It is, of course, far more likely that the 541 users in Category:Wikipedian mathematicians (a category which has lasted 27 months) would collaborate on a project than the 32 users in Category:Wikipedians who like red foxes (a category which has been around for only 4½ months). However, notice would certainly have been taken had at least 10 or 20 of them cast their votes for the retention of their category, but none did. Those fox lovers must have learned about the category's existence during the past 4½ months and will now learn about its demise when it is deleted from their user pages (it is also possible, but unlikely, given that they specifically self-identified as such, that they know about the CfD, but simply don't care). Similarly, as Bduke pointed out, the early year categories are very sparsely populated, especially pre-1960. In fact, nearly 70% of the 463 users in the categories within Category:Wikipedians by year of birth were born in 1980 or after. Moreover, not a single one of the 38 users in Category:Wikipedians born in 1987 (a category which has lasted for 20½ months [since December 12005]) or of the 42 users in Category:Wikipedians born in 1988 (created 18½ months ago) has come forward to defend their categories. In fact, as of this writing, SqueakBox is the only affected user, whose name appears in any of the "year" categories, to cast a "keep" vote. There are, of course obvious reasons for deleting user categories expressing personal hate beliefs and criminal tendencies and, likewise, for keeping one's personal details private. Yet, although a considerable number of users have nonetheless added names, dates, addresses and photographs to their user pages, a category along the lines of Category:Wikipedians whose names and dates are on their user pages would probably be deleted as too reminiscent of MySpace. Ultimately, I still feel these 40 categories should remain because their parent Category:Wikipedians by year of birth is one of only two categories (Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality is the other) in the larger Category:Wikipedians by birth. No other category, including Category:Wikipedians by user page provides any information about the year of birth or age distribution of users. In fact, looking at the all-encompassing Category:Wikipedians, there is no danger of any MySpace-like categories being allowed to remain for long or, at least, no longer than a few months. We are, in fact, telling users that no personal categories (especially "trivial" ones which usually start with "Wikipedians who like" or political ["Wikipedians who support"]) will be allowed to remain alongside the "established" descriptive categories already in Category:Wikipedians. We should, of course, maintain standards and avoid subjectivity, but one's year of birth, if willingly submitted is, by any objective criterion, a unique and yes, "defining" factor, which should be judged by its uniqueness rather than by being grouped with any other descriptions or attributes. —Roman Spinner (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will reply separately to the points you make:
      - You wrote: "By this standard alone, the numbers become an important consideration in the deletion debates." Not necessarily. The bolded opinions serve the function of ensuring that an individual editor's viewpoint is clearly expressed, but their mere presence does not require them to be actually counted. I regularly close AfD discussions without conducting a precise count of the tally of 'keep's and 'delete's.
      - You wrote: "Those fox lovers must have learned about the category's existence during the past 4½ months and will now learn about its demise when it is deleted from their user pages". More likely, they learned about the existence of the userbox which populates that category (I'm not sure how long it's been around), and will never even notice the deletion of the category.
      - You wrote: "Category:Wikipedians by year of birth is one of only two categories (Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality is the other) in the larger Category:Wikipedians by birth". Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I intend to nominate Category:Wikipedians by birth for deletion, as I do not agree that "ethnicity" should be placed under it (this has to deal in large part with scholarly disagreements about how ethnic identities are obtained).
      - You wrote: "one's year of birth, if willingly submitted is, by any objective criterion, a unique and yes, 'defining' factor". Even though I would prefer to leave to individuals the judgment of what is or is not a defining attribute for them, I think most will agree that year of birth is a defining characteristic of a person. However, why is it relevant to an encyclopedia? The category namespace is not the appropriate venue for creating user profiles, even if those profiles include "defining" factors. Such a use is the very thing covered under WP:NOT#MYSPACE.
    - You wrote at the beginning that "The 'objective criterion of collabortative merit' should, indeed, be the overriding factor". However, your comment does not further address this point. How do these categories foster collaboration? How is year of birth connected with interest in a subject, knowledge of a subject, or access to sources about a subject? That, and not the population of the categories or their length of existence, determines their usefulness. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BEANS. While I am a strong proponent of WP:AGF, I think that these categories are just waiting to be abused by those wanting to misrepresent something about themselves, in this case "age". I'm intentionally not citing past such examples, or further rationales for the same reason : ) - If kept, still delete the individual years, retaining only the decades. - jc37 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 14[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are Triathletes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who are Triathletes to Category:Wikipedian triathletes - jc37 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who are Triathletes to Category:Wikipedian triathletes

Nominator's rationale: A more efficient formulation (and to fix capitalisation). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Could have been a speedy, totally uncontroversial and follows cat naming conventions. Horologium t-c 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians for anonymous editing[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground and it is counterproductive to encourage the formation of formal factions around points of disagreement. These categories do not foster collaboration and there is no reason someone would need to browse through them. Editors who agree or disagree with a certain practice, policy, or guideline should present their arguments to the community at the appropriate place (usually the process/policy/guideline talk page).

Please note that this discussion is not about censoring dissent or anything of that sort. Editors are welcome to dissent all they want on their userpages and on appropriate discussion pages (the village pump, policy talk pages, user talk pages, and so on).

Please also note precedents for deleting similar categories here, here, here and here. There is also ample precedent for deleting any "support/oppose" and "for/against" categories (see e.g. here, here, here, here and here).

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. --Bduke 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per there, there, there and there.--WaltCip 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - divisive user category. This is just as bad as "users against anonymous editing". --Haemo 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. Divisive categories have no place on Wikipedia when they deal with policy. Horologium t-c 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.67.220 (talk) 01:42:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

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

City residence categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge #1, rename#2, delete others. No prejudice against renaming others if/as they get used. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who live in Oslo into Category:Wikipedians in Oslo
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Bakersfield to Category:Wikipedians in Bakersfield
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Daytona Beach to Category:Wikipedians in Daytona Beach
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Narva to Category:Wikipedians in Narva
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Plovdiv to Category:Wikipedians in Plovdiv
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Sofia to Category:Wikipedians in Sofia
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Tartu to Category:Wikipedians in Tartu
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Tempe to Category:Wikipedians in Tempe
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Varna to Category:Wikipedians in Varna
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Vila Real to Category:Wikipedians in Vila Real
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Vilnius to Category:Wikipedians in Vilnius
Rename Category:Wikipedians who live in Wenatchee to Category:Wikipedians in Wenatchee

Merge / Rename per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location. None of these categories, except the ones for Bakersfield and Oslo, contain actual users, so it may be worth considering their deletion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Bakersfield and Oslo, Delete the rest, as per nom. If recreated, cats should use proper name; closing admin might consider salting current forms to encourage proper cat name. Horologium t-c 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians with Cancer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians with Cancer to Category:Wikipedians with cancer

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. In the past month, this category was nominated for deletion, deleted, and restored at DRV; if it is to stay, let's at least fix the title. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per nom. I was one who argued for retaining the cat, but the rename is both sensible and non-controversial. Horologium t-c 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 12[edit]

Category:Citizens of Milky Way[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Earthlings declare independence. Solar System in turmoil. Have a great day, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "cute category" does not enforce a means of collaboration, and is all-inclusive. While highly populated, it serves no ultimate purpose. --WaltCip 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just queried me as to whether my rationale "highly populated, it serves no ultimate purpose" addressed the category, or the galaxy itself. I'll leave you Wikiphilosophers to make your own decision on that.

Agreed, slightly too inclusive. Delete.--Ramdrake 11:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's kinda cute, but yeah, too inclusive. GreenJoe 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Wikipedians who are human". Very pointless MySpace-ism. --Haemo 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides, if I'm a "citizen," why is it I'm never invited to vote? Milkfish 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense category. Horologium t-c 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as meaningless drivel, SqueakBox 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several million wikipedians could go into this category, and that's too many for a category; it's like having Category:Articles on almost every article. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this one is obvious, no need to wait. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW, anyone?--Ramdrake 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 11[edit]

Category:Wikipedians in Zhejiang China[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Category is valid. If you don't want the member to be in it that is another fight that doesn't belong here. If you convince the user to leave the category, this can be C1'ed. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a userbox-populated category that includes only one user (see contribs). The text of the userbox reads "This user is from Zhejiang, China" and the creator's userpage confirms that he does not currently reside in Zhejiang. Thus, despite its name, this is a "Wikipedians from ..." (i.e. a "by origin" category). Such categories do not foster collaboration and only serve to reduce (by introducing ambiguity and clutter) the overall usefulness of actual "Wikipedians in ..." categories, which can aid collaboration. The userbox (Template:User Zhejiang) should be modified to remove all user categorisation.

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to suppose that these categories do not support collaboration. I am from Yorkshire by origin and have made a lot of contributions to articles about places in Yorkshire that I know and can find and assess sources for. Given the situation in China, it is quite possible that the users who add themselves to this category could make a useful contribution to WP articles from outside China. --Bduke 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being born in a place does not automatically endow someone with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about that place (especially since personal experiences constitute original research) or even necessarily an interest in editing articles related to that place (for that, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in a region). In addition, unlike the "by location" categories, these categories are not useful for requesting photographs as they say nothing about where a person currently lives. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Note also that Zhejiang has a population of over 47 million, so this isn't Category:Wikipedians who live on 7th street in Bison, Kansas. — The Storm Surfer 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that someone came from somewhere doesn't help collaboration, if they aren't still there. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They can at the least bring perspective to the table (for notability judgements, say), and may very well have contacts or materials relating to the area. — The Storm Surfer 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is determined by the availability of sources, not the assurances and/or guarantees of individual editors. Also, people living in a place are far more likely to have contacts/materials than people just born in a certain place (and who may have relocated at an early age). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So... we should delete Wikipedians in Zhejiang China but keep Wikipedians in Zhejiang China? — The Storm Surfer 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The category currently contains only one user who has stated on his userpage that he does not live in Zhejiang and who is in the category because he uses a userbox that states "This user is from Zhejiang". What I'm proposing is to edit the template to remove the user categorisation and to delete the then-empty category without prejudice to proper recreation (i.e. recreation when it includes the userpage of someone who actually lives in the province). Of course, our naming conventions suggest recreating simply as Category:Wikipedians in Zhejiang, without the "China". — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I agree with Bduke, et al, that collaboration is possible once one has left the region in question (I drove Fort Lauderdale, Florida to GA status despite the fact that I left the area in 1986, and never actually lived in the city), but keeping this category opens the door to an infinite number of possible permutations. WP convention has been to use "in" rather than "from", and although I disagree with it (for a number of reasons, such as the one I cited earlier), I will support the community's decision. I don't think a change is warranted or desirable, as it would entail hundreds of category changes, for little apparent gain. As a side note, I am from Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but have no ability to contribute to the article, as my family and I moved to Florida on my third birthday. That is the agument made by Black Falcon and ^demon, that "from" categories don't always convey special knowledge of a region, whereas "in" categories, at the very least, allow a user to find someone to take pictures or access a library or historical society for local history archives. Horologium t-c 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians by fraternity and sorority, part 2[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination includes Category:Wikipedians in Chi Phi, Category:Wikipedians in Phi Sigma Alpha, Category:Wikipedians in Theta Tau, Category:Wikipedians in Zeta Psi, Category:Wikipedians in Zeta Mu Gamma

Category:Wikipedians by fraternity and sorority and all its subcats were deleted per a recent deletion discussion. These five categories were left out of the previous nomination due to the fact that they were not properly categorised.

Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE and precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe speedy G5? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy members. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy to Category:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy members or Category:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy participants

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. I have notified the creator to see which suggested target ("members" or "participants") the WikiProject prefers. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he is grateful. Personally, I prefer "members", but am also notifying all the others who use the box so that they can express their opinions as well. John Carter 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy to Category:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy members — "members" is a term used more often, just look at Category:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy members. ~ Troy 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Northern New York[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in Northern New York into Category:Wikipedians in Upstate New York

Nominator's rationale: The categories are redundant in scope, but "Upstate New York", as opposed to "Northern New York", refers to a relatively well-defined area. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Northern New York is too broadly defined. Upstate is better. --_Hdt83 _Chat 19:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. "Upstate", though, is generally regarded as "anything other than the Bronx on the mainland, so the target cat is a bit more inclusive. Horologium t-c 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians contributing to Open Source[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that the MediaWiki software is open source, which would make this category all-inclusive. Even if I'm wrong, a general category for users who contribute open source projects (a paraphrasing of the userbox) is too broad/vague, as this category will include editors of most websites that use the wiki software. Moreover, no information is given about what their "contribution" involves (is it research, creating images, fixing typos, none of the above, ...?) or how it is relevant to collaboration on Wikipedia.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely contributing to an open source project includes anyone who's made an edit to Wikipedia. Categorizing users who develop open source projects could aid in collaboration, but contributing..., no. WODUP 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too broad in scope to be useful. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians contributing to OpenStreetMap[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians contributing to OpenStreetMap to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to OpenStreetMap

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by website. I think that this is one of the few "by website" categories that may actually foster collaboration since people who contribue to OpenStreetMap (as opposed to merely using it) are involved in the creation of free street maps, which can be used in Wikipedia articles. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as per nom. Horologium t-c 16:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians looking forward to video games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for users who are "looking forward to" the release of one or more upcoming video games. A vague expression of anticipation for the release of an unspecified product does not foster collaboration. There is no reason someone might need to look through the category (Category:Wikipedians by video game already contains subcategories for specific and existing games).

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless for collaboration. --- RockMFR 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't even say which game, which renders it totally useless for collaboration. --Haemo 23:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians living in Tampere[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. No prejudice against recreation per convention if/when populated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians living in Tampere to Category:Wikipedians in Tampere

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location. Since the category currently contains no users, it may be appropriate to simply delete it without prejudice to future recreation.

Delete or rename as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Empty. Only pages in this category are userboxes. ~Iceshark7 20:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subcats of Category:Wikipedian mathematicians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian mathematicians/math-1 to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians-1
Rename Category:Wikipedian mathematicians/math-2 to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians-2
Rename Category:Wikipedian mathematicians/math-3 to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians-3
Rename Category:Wikipedian mathematicians/math-4 to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians-4

There is no need for the title to specify a subpage. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Wikipedian mathematicians. There is no need to babelize this category at all. Horologium t-c 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian jodoka[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep per jc37. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian jodoka into Category:Wikipedian judoka

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the categories is identical. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently not: Judo vs. Jōdō - jc37 10:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 10[edit]

Category:Wikipedian Wahyanites[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. No prejudice against creating a proper alma mater category if it can distinguish the correct college. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) This is a category for Wikipedians who attended Wah Yan College, Hong Kong or Wah Yan College, Kowloon. Given this ambiguity, it may be appropriate to delete the category. If deletion is not the optimal course of action, then rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wah Yan College per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was more widely used, I'd say keep and disambiguate, but given it only has two users, I'm going to say delete it instead and save us the hassle. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Type Designers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian type designers. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Type Designers to Category:Wikipedian type designers or Category:Wikipedian typeface designers

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation, although I'm not certain whether "type designer" or "typeface designer" is more appropriate. This should also be made a subcategory of either Category:Wikipedians by profession or Category:Wikipedians by skill; again, I'm not sure which is more appropriate. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian type designers. Personally, the phrase "typeface designer" sounds more descriptive than "type designer". However, judging from several of our typography articles (particularly Type design and Typeface), the phrase "type designer" is more correct. I think. Somebody else could probably go ask the one person in that category for input. As for a parent category, I lean toward Category:Wikipedians by skill, but either category is appropriate. Therefore, use both. The categories do not need to form a tree. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 07:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most creators of user categories are inactive or created the category due to a CfD/UCfD discussion. The creator (and sole member) of this category has not edited for a month, but I've left a message on his/her talk page on the off-chance that s/he chooses to edit again sometime in the next 5-7 days. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Toastmasters to Category:Wikipedian in Toastmasters International

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by organization. The current title is a little confusing ... at first glance I thought it was a "skill" category. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support without comment. --GreenJoe 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Salsa dancers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Salsa dancers to Category:Wikipedian salsa dancers

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support without comment. GreenJoe 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Shakuhachi players[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Shakuhachi players to Category:Wikipedian shakuhachi players

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. It may also be worthwhile to consider the overall usefulness/need for the category. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support without comment. GreenJoe 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian RollerGirls[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This is a category for Wikipedians "who play roller derby in its current all-girl, (mostly) flat-track form". As such, its scope is too narrow to be useful. If kept, it should be renamed to ... something.[reply]

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thee are only two members, and they may well agree, so i notified them.DGG (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Rowers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Rowers to Category:Wikipedian rowers

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. A more general evaluation of the usefulness of the category may also be called for. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. As a further evaluation, I note that this category and Category:WikiProject Rowing members are both populated from Template:User WikiProject Rowing, but the former is much more populated than the latter. Therefore it seems a better source for collaboration at present than Wikipedia:WikiProject Rowing. I therefore see no reason to not just keep it. --Bduke 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian PhD candidates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian PhD candidates into Category:Wikipedian graduate students

Nominator's rationale: In terms of encyclopedic collaboration, there is nothing special about being a "candidate" for a degree. We already have categories for degree-holders (see Category:Wikipedians by degree), so this type of "candidate" category is unneeded. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not needed as nom says. --Bduke 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bduke. --GreenJoe 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian NAVA members[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian NAVA members to Category:Wikipedians in the North American Vexillological Association

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by organization. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian National Audubon Society Members[edit]

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

The result of the debate was move both to Category:Wikipedians in the National Audubon Society. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Rename Category:Wikipedian National Audubon Society Members to Category:Wikipedians in the National Audubon Society[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by organization.

Merge Category:Wikipedian National Audubon Society Donators into Category:Wikipedians in the National Audubon Society, or delete

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not a social networking/recognition site, especially for other organisations. This userbox-populated category for Wikipedians who are donors to the National Audubon Society serves no collaborative purpose.

Rename and merge or delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first and merge the second. --Bduke 12:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian LGBT community[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This is a category for Wikipedians who "are proud to be connected with the LGBT community in some way". The category says nothing about the sexual orientation, editing interests, or subject expertise of its members. It just says that these people are "proud" to be somehow connected with the LGBT community, which may refer to having an LGBT relative, friend, employer/employee, neighbour, teacher/student, and so on. It is essentially a "Wikipedians who are proud to be ..." category.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia may not be a social networking website, but it does say something about the Wikipedians themselves, and their prejudices. GreenJoe 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the purpose of categories to "say something about the Wikiepdians themselves"; that's what userboxes and typed statements are for. Also, "says something about the Wikipedians themselves" by itself is not a valid inclusion criterion. Category:Wikipedians who would like to see (insert name) hanged and mutilated says a lot about an editor's prejudices, but it's still inappropriate. I know the example is extreme, but the general principle applies across cases. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'keep people may want to characterise themselves is a quieter way than a user box. We should provide the facility. there's no indication its used for social networking, and there are many relevant articles for collaboration. DGG (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a category quieter than a little image on a random page? -- Jelly Soup 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not even a userbox is needed. A few words of text is even 'quieter' than a category. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should categories, instead of userpages, "provide the facility" for people to identify themselves on random points? This category is, in principle, no different from ones like Category:Wikipedians who are proud to be affiliated with Christians, Category:Wikipedians who are proud to be affiliated with employees of McDonald's and Category:Wikipedians who are proud to be affiliated with people who have lived in Ouagadougou. By the way, my choice of categories was completely random ... I'm not trying to imply any sort of connection between Christianity, McDonald's and Ouagadougou. :P — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; similar categories exist and the "community" is, as stated, "proud to be". Ral315 » 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black Falcon is right, this is inherently different from the other sexuality categories, as this one is designed primarily for a sense of community, which is not what Wikipedia is about. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This is an example of an unnecessary subcat of the LBGT group that is appropriate for deletion, rather than the whole category. Horologium t-c 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Mountain bikers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Mountain bikers to Category:Wikipedian mountain bikers

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. Given the relatively narrow scope of the category and the fact that it contains only one user (who already appears in the parent category), I wonder whether deletion is a more appropriate course of action. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --GreenJoe 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Electronics and Telecommunication students[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for Wikipedians who are electronics and telecommunication students. I propose that we either delete it for having too narrow a scope or rename it to Category:Wikipedian electronics and telecommunication students or Category:Wikipedian electronics and telecommunications students. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being a student in a particular field doesn't foster contribution. Even so, far too narrow in scope. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian D-Star users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is a category for Wikipedians whose radios are D-STAR compatible, D-STAR being "a digital voice and data protocol specification" for radios. Regardless of the category's purpose, I think it is too narrow in scope to be very useful. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use D-STAR.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian WikiCurmudgeons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedia WikiCurmudgeons and Category:Wikipedian Curmudgeons, which redirect to the main category.

This is a category for editors who have "become annoyed, concerned, exasperated or bemused in observing the many behaviorial quirks of the Wikipedia Community and its various subgroups". Thus, it has no collaborative potential. It is fine as a userbox or as text on a userpage, but a category is unneeded.

Delete as an all-inclusive category. After all, who hasn't, at one time or another, become annoyed/exasperated/concerned? :P And, yes, I realise that this nomination itself may be a source of annoyance, concern, exasperation, or amusement, but that doesn't make the category any more useful. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unhelpful page Alex Bakharev 22:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Crystallographers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Crystallographers to Category:Wikipedian crystallographers

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. It may also be appropriate to move this out of the "by skill" category and into the "by profession" category. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom including changing parent category. --Bduke 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Clinical Laboratory Scientists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per precedent. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for Wikipedians who are medical technologists. I think the scope of the category may be too narrow, especially considering that the sole member (and creator) is inactive (2 edits since November 2006). If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian medical technologists to match the title of the main article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and userify the userbox (Template:User Clinical Laboratory Scientist). — Scientizzle 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian medical technologist. We have these for lots of professions. the location of the userbox is not our job here. --Bduke 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Audio Engineers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian Audio Engineers to Category:Wikipedian audio engineers

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian MUHS Alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian MUHS Alumni to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Marquette University High School

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by high school. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --GreenJoe 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians for Mitt Romney[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advertising. Even if that is not purpose of this category, Wikipedia is not a social networking site.

Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may not like the guy, but Wikipedians have the right to support the candidate of their choice. Wikipedia isn't a beaurocracy or a democracy. GreenJoe 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--WaltCip 02:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is something your supposed to avoid in deletion discussions? -- Gudeldar
Delete per nomination I don't see how this could aid in collaboration. -- Gudeldar 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, who you support in an election is irrelevant to your collaborative capabilities. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians that love basketball[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians that love basketball to Category:Wikipedians interested in basketball

This category is populated by a userbox that states: "This user loves the sport of basketball." If that is close enough to having an encyclopedically-relevant interest in basketball, then rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in basketball. If not, delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE as a category whose sole purpose is to express a rather broad like/dislike. At the moment, I don't feel strongly either way. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to proposed title. –sebi 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, loving basketball doesn't mean you're able to contribute to it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:All Wikipedian by political ideology categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was All deleted --Cyde Weys 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by political ideology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Anarchist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Capitalist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Centrist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedian Classical Liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Conservative Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Green Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Independent Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Kemalist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Leftist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Liberal Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Libertarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Libertarian socialist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Marxian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Masculist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Minarchist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Moderate Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:National Bolshevik Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Progressive Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Religious Left Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Religious socialist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Republican Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rightist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Social democratic Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Socialist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Syndicalist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Technocrat Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedian theoretical communists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All those categories a magnets for canvassing the editorial disputes. Any time we would have a marginally politically related discussion (xFD,RFA, RFC, RFM, etc) or an editorial dispute any user can canvass all the supporters just using the relevant category. All those categories are unavoidably divisive and not better than the divisive templates see T1 of WP:CSD. I cannot see how such category can help to build the encyclopedia but I can easily see how they hinder Alex Bakharev 12:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The chief goal here is to prevent canvassing, do you have any evidence that this is happening? Or is this a theoretical situation only? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about deleting templates that many hundreds of editors have chosen to put on their user pages, right? Unless there's strong evidence that it's causing serious trouble and has no redeeming value I would be very slow to intervene, and even then I'm not sure it is proper. People express themselves and their personal biographies, interests, etc. Suppressing that would be a rather extreme form of censorship. It's one thing to allow people to be anonymous and nonpartisan. It's another thing to require it. Even the anti-canvassing rules (which are guideline, not policy) are inherently undemocratic and somewhat elitist on Wikipedia's part. There is some good in avoiding excessive spam, rancor, and POV-pushing, although it 'is' tolerated per WP:CANVASSING to contact a limited number of people in order to attempt to influence a vote to legitimate ends. But any time you restrict people's personal freedoms that has to be balanced against the goal to be served and the harm to be avoided. Because the harm of canvassing seems theoretical not actual, is itself not a firm policy, and because the solution would impact so many people on a very basic right of personal expression, I'm inclined to say you should fight canvassing if and when it occurs, not tell people they should stop expressing their political opinions out of fear that becomes a magnet for canvassing. Wikidemo 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question, can you show that the problems you are trying to fix are actually problems? Has this been happening with these cats? Until(1 == 2) 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just want to clarify one point: no userbox/template will be deleted as a result of this discussion. A number may be modified slightly, but none will be deleted and, in most cases, individual userpages will not be directly edited. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please move this discussion to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: all these categories were nominated and kept about a month ago. They were kept at Deletion Review. [2] Unless you can show that something drastic has changed for these categories to be renominated so soon, these should be kept as per previous, recent consensus.--Ramdrake 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete National Bolshevik and Minarchist, as they only have one and two members respectively. DrKiernan 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. As a question of procedure, if you click on the CFD link, it doesn't bring you here. I had to find a round-about way to find this discussion. I don't think it's fair that there's a secret discussion of these categories. And yeah, this was done about a month ago. Bad faith nom. GreenJoe 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is most certainly not a secret discussion. It was initially (and mistakenly) listed at CfD, so that's why the direct link doesn't work for now. Moreover, it is even now listed at a public and established forum for deletion debates. I think your accusations of bad faith on the part of the nominator are inappropriate and urge you should retract that statement. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While calling this a "secret discussion" is certainly wrong, undoubtedly one should question the wisdom of renominating this category so soon after the preceding nomination. I just wish an admin would do the right and speedy close as keep (no questions asked as to the good faith of the nominator).--Ramdrake 18:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and added a note at CfD to point here until the tags can be fixed. --- RockMFR 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any that are actually used. Also, I agree with Ramdrake that it's too soon after the previous result unless a new reason has been given, which doesn't seem to be the case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. We have been here too recently and should be wasting time revisiting this so soon after the last discussion. --Bduke 22:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The underlying issue of whether or not political ideology is appropriate in userspace has not changed: it still isn't. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. These categories do not facilitate collaboration. Useful political categories would be something like "Wikipedians interested in foobarbaz". —ptk✰fgs 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the intelligent editors wont categorise themselves so easily, SqueakBox 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a political forum or a place to form ideological factions. Individual editors can still express their views without having to be classified in categories. As far as collaborative potential goes ... there's little. The likelihood that a random subscriber to a random ideology will have access to reliable sources about that ideology is, in my view, too small to make these categories useful. The connection between affiliation and interest, though probably slightly stronger, is still not readily apparent. I'd also like to note that no actual reason to 'keep' has been given so far. All of the 'keeps' are variations of "re-nominated too soon". However, the discussion held two months ago closed as a 'delete', which was overturned at deletion review. So, in essence, we can view this as a "no consensus" situation, where a renomination after 50 days is more than appropriate. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 8[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is much too long. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Doppelgänger (1969 film) or delete as too narrow in scope. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we are going to make individual categories for "likes a particular film", what's next? Far too narrow. Mel sa ran 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too narrow in scope to be useful. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ^demon. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. GreenJoe 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who sew[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category description says it all: "This category is meant to foster friendships and conversation among Wikipedians who sew." Wikipedia is not a social networking site (I'm not even sure that the ability to sew is a sufficient basis for establishing a bond of friendship) and this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the category itself describes the situation well. However, I think we should notify the users in question; does anyone have a bot to do this? --Haemo 01:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor requested this kind of bot but the idea was overwhelmingly opposed for various reasons, including that it is a non-essential task, suggests a degree of ownership/control over userpages that is not afforded by WP:UP, and would spam thousands of talk pages. Two others suggested that the bot be called VotestackingBot and/or MySpaceBot ... which should make their thoughts on the matter quite apparent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the category describes the social networking aspect itself. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, above users. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who miss Steve Irwin[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to honour deceased friends, relatives, or celebrities.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Harmful category, could encourage fanaticism within Wikipedia mainspace.--WaltCip 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Yes, it has to go. --Bduke 23:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thoughtful, but no. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this category is fine. JRG 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you have a policy to back up that "strong" statement?--WaltCip 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you being sarcastic? You don't have to cite a policy for every "strong delete" or "strong keep" you make. Strong deletes aren't that different from just plain "deletes" in terms of citing a policy; if someone proposes that the category must be "strongly kept" without citing a policy, or in your words, without "backing up that "strong" statement?", then so be it. If you provide a reason as to why your stance on the discussion is "strong keep", then I guess your argument is more convincing. –sebi 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you misss him go edit the article, SqueakBox 16:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I highly doubt fanaticism would result from such a category, a category is unneeded. bibliomaniac 15 03:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A bit harsh there, SqueakBox, but in essence that's the truth. Giggy ^Talk 09:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what about Wikipedians who miss John Citizen, or Susan Citizen? Or even John Doe for heaven's sake. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians with Indian Heritage[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wikipedians with Indian Heritage to Category:Indian Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: As far as user categories are concerned, there is no real difference between "of Indian heritage" and "of Indian descent". — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who use SLSB's temp[edit]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by After Midnight citing CSD G7 ("only editor requested deletion"). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for users who use userboxes created by a specific user. Thus, it serves no collaborative purpose.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I just wanted to know who uses my userboxes. If there is any other way I will delete it. SLSB talk • contrib 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can check who uses each userbox by going to the page where it is located and clicking the "whatlinkshere" link just below the search field on the left side of the page. Or, you can type Special:Whatlinkshere/Name of the page into the search field. For instance, for the "loves Uno" userbox, just type Special:Whatlinkshere/User:SLSB/UBX/LU. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who went to Lowndes High School[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Wikipedians who went to Lowndes High School to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Lowndes High School

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by high school. Since the category is empty except for the userbox, a "userboxes I created" page, and a project page, it may be worth considering deletion.

Delete or rename as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I fail to see how a category for Wikipedians who went to a high school that doesn't exactly have an article yet. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alma mater categories for schools without Wikipedia articles is counter intuitive. Why have a category for a non-notable school? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Alexander Hamilton[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedians who like George Washington, Category:Wikipedians who like John Adams and Category:Wikipedians who like Thomas Jefferson

These are categories for users who "like" a specific US president, populated by userboxes which state: "This user likes ...". Thus, they present no collaborative merit. Merely liking someone, especially on this kind of superficial level (after all, none of the editors in these categories have actually met these presidents and know little to nothing about their personalities), implies neither an ability to contribute encyclopedic content to articles nor an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. After all, we don't see the entire heterosexual male and homosexual female population of Wikipedians swarming to improve articles on cover models of Playboy, Loaded, or Maxim. Since these categories started out lacking collaborative merit, I think an upmerge will only reduce the usefulness of the parent category.

Delete as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and precedent. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who watch Sky News[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedians who watch FOX News and Category:Wikipedians who watch SpeedTV

These are categories for users who watch a specific television channel. There are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of TV channels worldwide and anyone with access to the internet (necessary for being a Wikipedian) likely has access to at least one (in all but the least developed places, probably several dozen). Merely watching programmes presented on a particular station does not have any relevance to an editor's ability or desire to contribute to the article about that station.

Delete all as nom and per precedent. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the deletion rationale on this category could be "Yeah, me too -- so what of it?" --Haemo 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you've probably noticed, I'm a little long-winded when it comes to deletion rationales. :P – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one is online too but rerally that is no reason to keep, SqueakBox 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stupid category. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without comment. --GreenJoe 18:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who can't stop thinking[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user category does not further collaboration and is most likely a humour category. At least delete the redirect, Category:Wikipedian who can't stop thinking. For various reasons, including that categories are themselves navigation/organization pages with specific naming conventions, redirects to them are rarely needed.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 05:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless waffle, SqueakBox 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stupid. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians whose religion has been deleted by Wikipedia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, WP:POINT. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was either created in good faith but serves a purely social networking purpose or constitutes disruption intended to illustrate a point. By the way, the deletions of 2 of the 3 categories noted as "deleted by Wikipedia" were overturned.

Delete as nom. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatantly pointy. I can only think this was as a result of the previous discussion; note that this is not helpful—rather, it is simply annoying, and solves nothing. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 08.08.07 0629 (UTC)
Strongest possible Delete. Insanely in violation of WP:POINT. Horologium t-c 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reasons as above... .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:POINT and factual grounds. DenisMoskowitz 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a bit irritated that my belief in the Great Spaghetti Monster has been sidetracked by Wikicracy, but I'm able to overlook that, and instead delete this superfluous category.--WaltCip 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Australian English[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:User Australian English to Category:User en-au

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the categories is identical and the suggested target conforms to the standard naming convention of Babel categories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Makes sense. :: maelgwn - talk 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Is there a reason why we would want to keep either of these categories? The userboxes are fine, but do the categories help collaboration? --Bduke 08:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support suggestion - No problems, seems logical. Bduke: Babel related cats ALWAYS help collaboration :) Translation, etc. Giggy ^Talk 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good suggestion, standardisation is good, also. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Emergency shutoff compliant bots[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete Picaroon (t) 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is useless for one main reason: Because it means nothing. I don't have qualms with the template, as it's at worst an odd user page decoration and at best an easy way for an admin to block a malfunctioning bot. However, the category just lists people who use the template or substituted it. These bots are no different than any other bots - they can be blocked just like any other bot. All the category does is show that they've put a gigantic block link on their userpage. Since the category doesn't have anything unique about it, I believe that it should be deleted. Ral315 » 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete as nominator. Ral315 » 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category encourages a misnomer. All bots can be blocked if they malfunction, they don't need a pretty button or category for that to happen. "Emergency shutoff" also suggests a special safeguard non-admins could also use, rather than the same method we use to stop all accounts that are misbehaving from editing. WjBscribe 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The big red button is not a distinguishing feature. Even if the button was a distinguishing feature, there's no reason for an editor to look through a category of such bots ... unless s/he is an admin who wants to go on a blocking spree. ;) — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No bot permission is needed, and admins can do the exact same thing with a different link for those not listed. Category is un-needed. It's basically a category for bots that have a shortcut way of blocking that takes just as long. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confused -- I always liked this category, but really; it doesn't do anything. I mean, it would almost be social networking....except they are all bots. So I don't really know what to say. Keep as general interest? Delete as redundant? Bleh?! --Haemo 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; all users have a "block user" link in the toolbox. Tizio 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Bots can be blocked without the button. The category serves no purpose, since it's only there to show who can be blocked the fastest. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's really nothing that changes when a bot has this bottom on their userpage. Giggy ^Talk 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, above users' points are convicing. The template is rather big and space consuming, as well. –sebi 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 6[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about Bug ID 9213[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either a WP:POINT violation or a completely useless category (none of these people, at least by merit of their membership in the user category, are able to help fix the bug. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 06.08.07 0942 (UTC)

Recommend delete as nominator. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 06.08.07 0942 (UTC)
Delete. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs )
Delete. No amount of frustration, teeth-grinding, or nail-biting will make a difference. As far as I know, no one except the developers can even begin to try do anything about this. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the last CfD that closed as an unabiguous keep, by the way. — Scientizzle 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'cause I like it. I'm a bit fond of this modest civil disobedience over a bug that is still relatively unknown with wide-ranging effects and unfortunate consequences. It's certainly not WP:POINTy, as it is in no way disruptive and certainly not offensive. Useless? Maybe. Maybe not. Greater awareness about this bug may improve RC patrol problems with anon editors and such... — Scientizzle 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way does this category increase awareness of the bug? While I don't think the category is POINTy, your contribution to this discussion might be interpreted as such; your characterization as "civil disobedience" seems to indicate such an inclination. The bug is a continuing issue, but another needless category appended to a userbox is not the solution. When this was last UCFD'd, many of the keep votes indicated that the category's purpose was to spread the word about the bug, but there is no indication that the category has done that at all. Horologium t-c 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there...a light-hearted reference to civil disobedience ≠ me trying to disrupt the project. On the contrary, I was attempting to explain the possible benefits of this cat, while providing the previous link, which was not done by the nominator or anyone prior to my comment. I'm not going to be horribly disillusioned if this is deleted, I merely think that it's as harmless and possibly more useful than a great number of other user cats. (Note how I'm self-awarely linking my own arguments to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? Do I need to plaster my comments with emoticons?) As to your other points, there's no diff I can show, but the cat has roughly doubled in usage since the last deletion discussion, which could potentially indicate a slow spread of the info. There's a whole AIV subpage on the topic, too. In conclusion, my comments have only been to address the assertions made in the nomination (not a POINT violation, maybe not completely useless) and your bizarre implication that I'm trying to disrupt anything 'round here. — Scientizzle 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking to arguments you know to be fraudulent or otherwise nonsensical? If you'd make a serious attempt at discussing, the closing admin will have an easier time deciding which 'side' you fall on. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 06.08.07 2356 (UTC)

Do we have an article on funny bone-ectomy? No? We should. Sheesh, people. I've made some very clear statements that address the nom & other comments directly. I've provided at least one complete argument for keeping (some evidence that this is "spreading the word"), as well as acknowledging my own biases that shade my arguments (which is good form in the science world--address the deficiencies of your own argument). For the apparent benefit of the closing admin: I think this should be kept. — Scientizzle 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems to me that a category might motivate devs to fix something which is obvious annoying some people. --Haemo 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More people being "annoyed" at this bug will tell devs that this major bug needs to be fixed. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an idea! Rather than implement a thinly-veiled protest in a category, why don't you write a letter to the devs and tell them that you want the bug fixed?
- NO! Of course not! That would make too much sense! But see, that's the way our wonderful American democracy works. We sulk and hope we can get somebody's attention. Delete, because we are not a democracy.--WaltCip 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And my arguments are nonsensical? — Scientizzle 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please be WP:CIVIL.--WaltCip 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the best way to get a bug fixed is to vote for it on Bugzilla, but *shrugs* what do I know? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bug-tracking system is the appropriate place to discuss bugs. —ptk✰fgs 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, many people are "annoyed" at lots of other bugs, but they don't go creating other categories to hopefully get a dev's attention – have you even tried contacting the devs about this bug? And if the category's main purpose is to raise awareness of the bug, why not create Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about brain tumours or Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about world poverty? Let's raise awareness of brain tumours and world poverty through categories. –sebi 09:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad analogy, this bug affects processes at Wikipedia directly such as reverting vandalism and such. Brain tumors and world poverty not so much, although much more important in the grand scheme of things. But thats not what UCFD is for. T Rex | talk 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bad interpretation, since that - in any case - such a category would not serve a collaborative or assisting purpose, whether or not the category aids a developer, a user, or an anon.--WaltCip 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand T Rex's point (about this being related to a wiki-process), but also agree that the context makes little difference. Category:Wikipedians who are terribly frustrated about the fact that so many people come only to vandalise articles may be a close analogy, but likewise presents little utility. No amount of frustration will affect the vandalistic tendencies of others, just like no amount of frustration will affect developers' ability do something about this, especially considering the fact the devs probably don't check these kinds of categories. An appropriate place to express frustration is at Bugzilla. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a temporary, and a very useful method hide this bug - create an account. And those people already in this category have accounts, leaving me very confused on why do they still worry about it. I don't think this is a serious category. ~Iceshark7 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just as an FYI...) There are many examples of IP editors not knowing about messages until after they're blocked due to this bug. This obviously rears its head if you do any vandal fighting--it's quite clear that a lot of IPs never get the warnings that might prevent future tests & vandalism. It's also particularly bad for the small but important number of deidicated contributors that choose not to make any accounts and have their. Several of these editors were "forced" into creating accounts because of this, and make up a good portion of the members of the category. Again, I don't much care if this gets deleted, but it's clear that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't know about this bug and its complications. — Scientizzle 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you're annoyed at the bug, write the devs. --Kbdank71 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 4[edit]

Category:Happy Birthday![edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Happy Birthday! to Category:Wikipedians whose birthday it is today

Nominator's rationale: As currently named, this category could easily be taken to be for categorizing the biographies of people whose birthday it is on a given day - you know, off in that place called the mainspace. This rename will make it clear that this is a category for Wikipedians. Note that this is populated via template, so the update will simply involve changing a thing in the thing. I think. Picaroon (t) 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Surely you mean Category:Wikipedians whose birthday it is today.~~ However, I see no reason for this category. It does not help collaboration and it has to be entered one day and taken off at the end of the day. Delete it, I reckon. --Bduke 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have to be added and removed on the day in question; it is added automatically if you transclude {{User current age}} on your page. And yes, I meant that name - I've adjusted the link. :-) Picaroon (t) 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit better, but it still does not foster collaboration. It looks to me as if the category is removed from the template you mention. I think it should stay removed. --Bduke 03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just leave it as is, actually; I don't think there would be any confusion, and in any case this actually does lighten up an editor's day. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 04.08.07 0402 (UTC)
Delete - Non-collaborative. Look out for the "YOU MUST HAVE FUN" Police, soon to be coming any moment now...--WaltCip 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fun but not needed for an encyclopedia. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. If people want to know which Wikipedians are celebrating a birthday, they can check today's page at the Birthday Committee – Who would go searching through categories to find out birthdays, anyway? –sebi 09:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move, I prefer deletion but I am not particularly opposed to moving it, also I think the correct category would be Category:Wikipedians whose birthday is today (note removal of 'it') -- Gudeldar 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sebi and policy. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --GreenJoe 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various Wikipedians by musical instrument categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. No prejudice against bringing this back for a rename quickly if someone gets a babel expert to endorse proper naming convention. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a proper template for multiple nominations, so I'm making this by hand, using the previously listed nominations as an example:

Rename Category:User fortepiano-1 -> Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-1
Rename Category:User fortepiano-2 -> Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-2
Rename Category:User fortepiano-3 -> Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-3
Rename Category:User fortepiano-4 -> Category:Wikipedian fortepianists-4
Merge Category:User guitar-1 -> Category:Wikipedian guitarists-1
Merge Category:User guitar-2 -> Category:Wikipedian guitarists-2
Merge Category:User guitar-3 -> Category:Wikipedian guitarists-3
Merge Category:User guitar-4 -> Category:Wikipedian guitarists-4
Rename Category:User keyboard-1 -> Category:Wikipedian keyboardists-1
Merge Category:User keyboard-3 -> Category:Wikipedian keyboardists-3
Merge Category:User piano-1 -> Category:Wikipedian pianists-1
Merge Category:User piano-2 -> Category:Wikipedian pianists-2
Merge Category:User piano-3 -> Category:Wikipedian pianists-3
Merge Category:User recorder-1 -> Category:Wikipedian recorder players-1
Merge Category:User recorder-2 -> Category:Wikipedian recorder players-2
Merge Category:User sax-4 -> Category:Wikipedian saxophonists-4
Rename Category:User tangent piano-1 -> Category:Wikipedian tangent pianists-1
Rename Category:User tangent piano-2 -> Category:Wikipedian tangent pianists-2
Rename Category:User tangent piano-3 -> Category:Wikipedian tangent pianists-3
Rename Category:User tangent piano-4 -> Category:Wikipedian tangent pianists-4

Many of user entries onto "User" prefix categories were either added by hand, by the User fortepiano-1-2-3-4 templates, or by the User tangent piano-1-2-3-4 templates. ~Iceshark7 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per precedent set by Babel and programming language user categories. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 30.07.07 0333 (UTC)

Should the "ist" categories be reversed to the "user" prefix, then? In piano and guitar categories, there are duplicate groups about the same purpose, and those shouldn't be left as a duplicate anyway. ~Iceshark7 08:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I dunno. It could go either way, really, now that you bring that up. All I know is that some of the ones you listed are trying to emulate the Babel and programming language user cats. By the way, sorry I took so long to reply. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 08.08.07 0633 (UTC)

Delete - but, Babel and programming languages serve a purpose in helping users work on projects together. How does playing the piano, or the viola, or whatever else do the same? --Haemo 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For underpopulated groups like fortepiano and tangent piano, that might be applicable as well. At least the most obvious ones (Piano, Guitar from the nominations.) should be kept, those are large enough, and may help on specific articles like Piano and Guitar itself. ~Iceshark7 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? I play the flute; ask me how much I know about the flute. You blow in one end and move your fingers in particular patterns to make sounds. That's about it. For popular instruments like piano or guitar this makes even less sense -- I can kinda play the saxophone too if I really tried for a while. Does that help me collaborate? How about all the teenagers and college students who jam on a Wal-mart guitar in their dorm? Are they going to be contributing to articles about guitars? In fact, your argument might have some merit in reverse; players of rare instruments would be likely to have some expertise about them. But not popular one -- and even with the rare ones, it's a stretch. --Haemo 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot really look onto the deletion suggestion, as that one would only apply onto these categories I just nominated, for a different purpose than deletion. If you want to delete the whole group, Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument, then a new nomintaion should be made, as I only intended to see some articles to be renamed/merged.

Wikipedia:Instruments is also under construction - who knows if it will be even better after it's done? ~Iceshark7 09:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haemo, this doesn't foster contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If so, then please make sure this is done to every user music category, not only the ones I listed. ~Iceshark7 13:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, add them to the nomination if you wish. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need audio recordings to build an encyclopedia with comprehensive coverage of music. Have you considered that maintaining user categories for musicians by instrument helps us locate musicians who can provide freely-licensed performances to that end? It's clear that these need to be reorganized, but music is something that is part of our encyclopedia and these categories are constructive in that area. —ptk✰fgs 00:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have articles relevant to them all. Any user cat we have relevant articles about is valuable to the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Don't see any particular reason to delete at this point: they aren't disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep relisted then? Fine. no harm, no foul. SchmuckyTheCat
- A nice, concise rebuttal. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 08.08.07 0633 (UTC)
Merge or rename per nom - there is no point in deleting all of these. They are important for finding users who understand about the specific instruments at hand. And they never did any harm previous to this. Why there is this incessant push to delete anything remotely community-based, I don't know. JRG 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the inaccurate assumptions and incivility in your last sentence, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that this nomination is for merging redundant categories and possibly renaming a few. Surely you're not suggesting that we keep separate categories that are identical in scope? Where the issue is, as here, a choice between two different naming standards, a simple "keep" vote (and yes, that's precisely what the above 'keeps' are) contributes very little to the discussion and does not help to produce a consensus of any kind. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per Octane and possible delete per Haemo. If the categories are kept, the redundant "Wikipedian -ists" categories should be merged into the "User" categories (i.e. a reverse merge). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That has to be done to every other musical category then, because the rename I proposed was one of the solutions for a polished category. What is the solution going to be, I'll proabably make another nomination about it, unless performed after a close of this nomination. ~Iceshark7 07:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps. I'm currently of the opinion that if this discussion isn't closed as "delete", that it should be "no consensus" without prejudice to an immediate renomination to decide whether we need musical categories at all and, if so, whether such categories should be structured after Babel cats (i.e. different levels of expertise) and how they should be named. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through a number of user categories, I've changed my mind: delete or rename per nom. It's better (in terms of clarity and navigation) if the "User" prefix is used only for Babel categories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The musical instrument user categories are more like Babel categories than most folks have considered. When we are lacking a freely-licensed recording for an article about music, having professional musicians categorized together with beginner musicians would make it difficult to find users of the appropriate skill level when requesting recordings. I do think that we make a far too precise distinction between different levels of proficiency with these categories (and I think we're a bit excessive with the Babel cats too), but a distinction between advanced or professional musicians and others is warranted, if we want these categories to be useful. —ptk✰fgs 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should table this matter and take a deeper look at how the user musician categories in general are organized. There is a clear value to categorizing users by instrument (and possibly by proficiency) because they can provide freely-licensed recordings to improve Wikipedia's coverage of music. This is at least the third time the issue has come up here, and on no occasion has anyone nominated the entire batch to be renamed, reorganized, or removed. Rather than hemming and hawing over small handfuls of user musician categories, we should consider the entire problem and develop a plan for streamlining these categories in a way that best facilitates harnessing the talents of Wikipedian musicians. —ptk✰fgs 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 3[edit]

Category:Wikipedians against copyright paranoia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is divisive, not in small part because it implies that certain editors are or behave as if paranoid. It does not aid collaboration and I can think of no valid reason for someone to specifically seek out editors who share this viewpoint. In addition, it is a "support/oppose" category, all of which have limited encyclopedic utility and go against the spirit, even if not always the letter, of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Divisive and harmful. I can't imagine this being used by anyone who upholds Resolution:Licensing policy or Wikipedia:Non-free content. Unless we're going to have Category:Wikipedians against NPOV as well. ElinorD (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see it that way. There is the proper strict observation of the policies, and there is also the excessively strict observance. There's a legitimate range of views on how to interpret them. It further remains possible for people to not disruptively advocate a change in some aspects of policy. DGG (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. You can follow a policy without having to like it. Wl219 06:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can accept that. But why does one need a category for that? Categories exist so that someone may browse through them. What reason is there for someone to specifically seek out users who oppose "copyright paranoia"? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I suppose you need a category to go with the userbox... unless you can have the userbox without the category? (But I don't think I've seen that...) Either way, I don't specifically seek out other users, but it's still nice to know "it's not just you." Wl219 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you CAN (and should) have userboxes without categories, but most people who create userboxen seem to be totally unaware of such a novel concept. If you are in need of affirmation of your particular view, you can use the "what links here" tool for the userbox and see who else is linked. Having a user cat like this is divisive, although it is not in opposition to wikipedia policy like the category below this one. Horologium t-c 11:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and my above screed. Horologium t-c 11:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a thinly veiled attack on people who follow policy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reason people may browse this category: to discuss proposed copyright related policy and editorial issues with editors who are of this viewpoint. Loom91 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be better to discuss with the community in general rather than a specific faction? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Black Falcon's comment above; seems a bit cliquish at best and divisive at worst.--WaltCip 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs )
Keep - It does foster collaboration, because if guidelines are going to change over time, which is possible, then it begins with people expressing dissatisfaction with the state of those policies. Is it forbidden to express dissent with a wikipedia policy, or to believe that a policy is stricter than it need be? It's possible to obey a policy you disagree with such as, Wikipedia:Non-free content, while still supporting a changes in that policy. If the term "copyright paranoia" is offensive to some, then perhaps a rename into something like Wikipedia:Wikipedians in favor of more lenient fair use policies would be appropriate (although that sounds like an unwieldy name)--Wingsandsword 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The function you are articulating is the function of a userbox, rather than a user cat. Nobody is suggesting to eliminate the userbox that contains the category (which only has three users, BTW), just the category itself. The two users who do not have the userbox on their page can add it if they wish, or simply state on the page "I am opposed to copyright paranoia on Wikipedia." Horologium t-c 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and Black Falcon's comment about halfway up. Categories like this only serve the purpose to divide the community over already contentious issues. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There deserves to be paranoia with people who don't worry about it. — Moe ε 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, proposing Category:Wikipedians against paranoia-related user categories for creation ;) –sebi 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 2[edit]

Category:Wikipedians against Fair Use[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category is divisive. At the very least, it does not help collaboration. If not deleted, it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians against fair use. --- RockMFR 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category serves no purpose but to try and divide the community over an already very contentious issue. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marlith ^T/C 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^demon and per my comments in the nomination for #Category:Wikipedians against copyright paranoia. What valid reason is there for someone to specifically look for a group of editors who are against fair use? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - divisive category with no collaborative potential. --Haemo 02:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see it that way. There is the proper strict observation of the policies, and there is also the excessively strict observance. There's a legitimate range of views on how to interpret them. It further remains possible for people to not disruptively advocate a change in some aspects of policy. The proposal that en-WP eliminate fair use is in my opinion a very poor idea, but there are perfectly respectable people who think it desirable, and say so in a responsible manner. Remember that some Foundation projects such as deWP do not allow fair use. DGG (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same as my comment for #Category:Wikipedians against copyright paranoia Wl219 06:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response at #Category:Wikipedians against copyright paranoia. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto, see above. Wl219 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nom, ^demon, and Black Falcon. Horologium t-c 11:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already a divisive enough area without people neatly sorted into factions. WjBscribe 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that this category does anything except advocate piracy, Jim lad. Korax1214 17:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Same reasoning as above, though unlike that one this category opposes established policy. Loom91 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be better to discuss with the community in general rather than a specific faction? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be taken the wrong way (supporting piracy, etc) Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we want Category:Wikipedians against civility, Category:Wikipedians for original research and Category:Wikipedians for making Wikipedia into MySpace, etc. created.. — Moe ε 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per above comments. –sebi 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not aid the project in any way. Dave101→talk 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sexuality Related User Categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former parent category was deleted in July (see here), as well were several other child categories. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and these categories serve no collaborative purpose (see the archived heterosexual discussion). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Many of those categories were discussed less than a month ago and the result was to keep. Demon is citing the sole exception to this keep verdict.--Ramdrake 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about all of the other discussions I linked which ended up in delete? The parent cat was deleted, as were quite a few of the other child cats. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These really can't be done as a mass nom. Some of these really are a bit too specific (Category:Bear cub Wikipedians and Category:Lipstick lesbian Wikipedians for example), but most look sensible. People tend to write about subjects they associate with and I know a lot of the membership of Wikiproject LGBT Studies were approached originally through messages to people in some of these categories. In a lot of cases people view these as of equivalent importance to their self indentity as race or nationality and I believe a lot of them have a genuine collaborative use. If one were looking for assistance in expanding an article about a transgender related topic, Category:Transsexual Wikipedians might be a good starting point for example. WjBscribe 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with WJBscribe that not all these categories are worth keeping, but since this is a group nom, I'm saying keep all for now and renominate those that are too specific for keeping.--Ramdrake 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Yes, Category:Gay Wikipedians was recently CfDed and kept here and here, so this CfD is kind of annoying. And if you're going to mass-nominate like this, you should properly link each category/article to this discussion or editors won't be able to find it as it gets a bit older. We all know that many deletion discussions can go one way or the other simply because not enough people come across them (and some previous discussions on this very topic have gone that way). Also, the constant MySpace argument during user category deletion discussions irks me; I am a very active editor and a member of the LGBT Project and others, and have never come across editors using this site to socialize in an inappropriate way. Allowing editors to assert some identity encourages participation. TAnthony 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add that these categories do indeed serve a collaborative purpose, as noted above by WjBscribe. TAnthony 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WjBscribe and TAnthony. While some of these categories may not be worth having due to overspecification, nomming them all together is not the way to do it. Kolindigo 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the above. No this is not and should not be MySpace. On the other hand, identity, grouping, and self-expression are strong, inherent needs of human nature. This ain't the Borg. (If it is, let's just delete all userspace, why not, and remain totally faceless, unsorted drones.) Unless something is truly "divisive and inflammatory" per Jimbo's famous dictum, well, can't we all just move along here and get back to creating great content? Instead of fretting over stuff that really doesn't matter a damn in the scheme of the Wikiverse?--Textorus 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I would also like to point out that furry isn't a sexuality, it's a fandom and subculture (it's like saying "punk" or "geek" is a sexuality :-). GreenReaper 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware, which is why I called it "sexuality related", as the furry subculture has a very large fetishism involved. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous declarations with particular objections to the 'myspace' reference. --emerson7 | Talk 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yawn. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Amadscientist 06:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a bad faith effort to raise user demon's delete count --> "As of 14:31, 2 August 2007, I have deleted 21896 items......AND COUNTING!" Benjiboi 11:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be deleting this anyway since I nominated it...and if you took notice of my log, you'd see that the vast majority of my deletions are in the image namespace. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a worthless comment, and what a tremendous assumption of bad faith. Next time, just don't bother saying anything at all. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same could be said for your comment try to be a bit more civil Whispe ring 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these are less clear keeps than others, and could be nominated separately.--Mike Selinker 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WJB and TAnthony. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Self-identification fosters goodwill among our users, who are volunteers. Nobody is forcing anyone to identify as a scat loving furry. The rant above by textorus is awesome. SchmuckyTheCat
Comment Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle seems to be a contentious parent cat, as every single one of its subcats has been nominated for deletion at least twice since June. I would suggest that this be the last nomination until the end of the year for any survivors of this CFD, unless someone who opposes a mass culling can identify categories that are of marginal usefulness. My personal suggestion would be to merge Heteroflexible, Homoflexible and Pansexual into Category:Bisexual Wikipedians; upmerge Lipstick Lesbians into Category:Lesbian Wikipedians; and merge Genderqueer Wikipedians into either Category:Queer Wikipedians or some other category as appropriate. Perhaps assessing the usefulness of the Nudist category is warranted, as well; how many of the members of this cat are simply people who edit Wikipedia while undressed? Horologium t-c 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Loom91 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral apathy - Well as much as I doubt this category's collaborative use, I think that the desire for human empathy will way outweigh the actual policy behind the UCFD system, and as such, I wouldn't give a snowball's chance in hell of this being deleted.--WaltCip 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As if there actually was a policy behind UCFD. SchmuckyTheCat
  - Sure there is: Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially the "not a soapbox", "not a social networking site", and "not a battleground" provisions. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NOT#MYSPACE specifically the part that says "User pages that move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable.", or to reverse that: broad expressions of sexual preferences are acceptable. These categories are "broad expressions of sexual preference" and thus acceptable.
Comment I don't think Nudism counts as a sexuality, so I'm not sure why this is listed in this nomination. — Moe ε 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is one of the surviving subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle, which is what seems to be the target here. Outside of the Demoscener and Deaf culture cats (which both survived AFDs in June, all of the remaining subcats of that category deal (to one degree or another) with sexuality. Nudism tangentially relates to the sexuality categories, since nudity and sexuality are somewhat intertwined. Horologium t-c 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of disagree that nudity automatically means sexual, but whatever -_- — Moe ε 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball, anyone? CaveatLector^Talk 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by religion and all subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Despite the strong arguments presented to delete, consensus is too strong to ignore. No prejudice against future nom of this category tree, but suggest that additional guidelines or policy may be needed. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of a particular religion does not necessarily aide in collaboration. Wikipedia is not a social network. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:

All subcats should be tagged soon, left word with AMbot here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and should be deleted. Not only that, I've seen these categories being used for vote canvassing in at least two situations. No upsides plus demonstrable downsides equals unqualified delete. --Cyde Weys 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cyde. --Kbdank71 03:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a Reformed Presbyterian, but I have previously demonstrated that I cannot contribute to RP-related articles. Membership != knowledge. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 02.08.07 0404 (UTC)
Keep all. Didn't we just do this? Kolindigo 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A discussion back in June was closed as delete, followed by an overturn at deletion review. --- RockMFR 04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I know. But I don't see how that equals renominate it for deletion a month and a half later. Kolindigo 05:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus can change, and this came about per the suggestion of a very recent discussion. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 02.08.07 0639 (UTC)
      - Can you link to this discussion, please?--Ramdrake 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 02.08.07 2158 (UTC)
        Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_26#Category:Psuedoreligionist_Wikipedians helohe (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kolindigo. Bad faith nomination since this was just done. GreenJoe 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please retract that comment, there was nothing bad-faith about my nomination whatsoever. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, help us understand other editors' biases. --Pmsyyz 05:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In a strange way, these categories do help the project. By people voluntarily stating their belief systems, they also are stating the bias that they might be bringing to a discussion. Recently, I was asked to close a debate on a politically charged question related to religion. I was able to check to see if people from different religions were taking part in the debate. I found that it was very one-sided, most of the people claiming to reach consensus were all of the same religion, and thus potentially not representitive. I think this sort of transparancy is good for Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which can be done via userboxes or worded statements just as easily. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 02.08.07 0641 (UTC)
Keep at least most of these, please!! To identify beliefs such as Panentheism or Pandeism should be findable, as one who bothers with a userbox indicating such belief probably has some knowledge of its theo/philo-sophical roots.... please observe also the difference between an "organized religion" (Bahá'í, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism) and a "belief system" (Theism, Deism, Pandeism, Pantheism, Apatheism).... //// Pacific PanDeist * 08:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - --Philip Laurence 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand User:Cyde's concerns, but these are of value to the WP and usefull for collaboration. --Bduke 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I really find these "let's delete user categories" witch-hunts. The religion/non-religion categories do in fact help us to understand other editors' biases, as Pmsyyz said above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is more useful for collaboration than userboxes, since it includes those who consider userboxes to be obtrusive. I doubt I would ever use of these, but a great many people feel otherwise. It will be good to establish that the earlier decision was an aberration, by considering these and KEEPing. DGG (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this was discussed only a month or so ago. Consensus changes, but not that fast.--Ramdrake 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd like to add that the reason invoked to retry this category for deletion is basically the existence of an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS vote in another UCFD. And lastly, the range of opinions so far should make it clear that consensus to keep hasn't changed. (It's still a 3:1 in the !votes, with no overpowering argument on either side).--Ramdrake 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being able to speak French doesn't help collaboration - unless you want help translating an article from French, but babel is usually the main example of user cats that are useful. Seems that these cats would be a useful way to find poeple to help write/expand articles relevant to these religions. WjBscribe 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how these are any less useful than other UCs. DenisMoskowitz 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WjB and Evertype. -- P.B. Pilhet 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful for understanding editing biases, though hardly infallible: User:Chooserr and I were both in Roman Catholic Wikipedians at one point, but were making diametrically opposed edits.--SarekOfVulcan 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep per deletion was overturned a month ago.--SarekOfVulcan 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A category has value if there is a valid reason that someone might browse through it. If you want to know the biases of a specific editor, you start at their userpage, not at the category. The "understanding/revealing bias" and "identifying beliefs" arguments are not relevant as the issue here is not an attempt to restrict expression of biases and beliefs, which can be done on userpages. The issue is that there is no reason, except social networking or canvassing, for someone to search through these categories. Trying to find out whether a specific editor has a specific bias/belief is valid and will require a check of their userpage. Trying to find out which editors have a specific bias (with no one specific in mind) is the first step in preparation for canvassing and/or social networking. The category only serves the latter purpose. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and rebuttal: 1)The specific biases of a user might not be on their userpage, either because they don't use userboxes, or maybe because they don't come out and say it (user cats have this going for them that they're more discrete than either a userbox or a user page declaration of faith). 2)No one has demonstrated that these user categories have ever been used for canvassing, or for that matter for any kind of activity which was deleterious, disruptive or contrary to the goals of Wikipedia (please provide a link of some sort if you wish to dispute otherwise). 3)The category can demonstrably be used to help in the collaboration on many religion-oriented articles (there are a large number of them on Wikipedia, so potential for collaboration should be considered high).--Ramdrake 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: (1) If an editor doesn't like userboxes, s/he can use plain text. How is a category more discreet than a simply "I am a ..."? In addition, whereas this type of information is fine on userpages, the category namespace should not be used for declarations of faith or the like (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#SOCIALNET). (2) That it has not happened yet (or, more accurately, that you and I are unaware of a specific instance in which it's happened) does not undermine the likelihood that it can happen or the fact that "lack of harm" does not translate into "encyclopedic use". Editors who are more active at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets and WP:AN/I may be able to give you more concrete examples. (3) As Octane stated above, "membership != knowledge"; nor does it translate into an encyclopedically-relevant interest. For people who actually have an interest in collaborating on religion topics, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in religions, which has subcats for individual religions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1a)We should be leaving it up to the users to choose whether to address their affiliation through a category, a userbox or a statement. (1b)Affiliation with a group does not equate soapboxing; I can be a Christian without doing any proselytizing, and the vast majorty of people do not proselytize. (2)The possibility of harm is not a valid reason to pre-emptively suppress anything, or else guns and nuclear power plants would have ceased to exist a long time ago. The fact is that nobody has been able to point to even a single instance where membership in these categories was used against the best interests of the project. (3)Membership, while it does not necessarily equate in knowledge or interest to collaborate encyclopedically, does indicate that there is a chance the user who is in a category will be able to contribute if asked. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess, and the same goes for all user categories. So, singling out a category or a family of categories on this basis is without foundation.--Ramdrake 22:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - (1a) The category namespace is part of the encyclopedia, so pages in that namespace should be relevant to the encyclopedia. (1b) Affiliation does not equal proselytising, but expressing affiliation can constitute soapboxing (even if unintended). If I started declaring my religious/political affiliations on talk page or, worse, articles, I'd be quickly rebuked. A category should have a reason for existence other than "just because". (2) Sure it is! Governments restrict the production, sale, and possession of firearms, radioactive/toxic materials, explosives, and so on. However, even if the categories are absolutely harmless, that does not prevent them from being equally useless. (3) I do not agree that "the same goes for all user categories". Someone who is in a "by interest" category has expressed an explicit interest in the subject. Someone in a language category has declared an ability to translate. Someone in a "by profession" category expresses an implied ability to do something (in order to be employed in a profession, a person must possess certain abilities, skills, or knowledge). Membership in a religion does not have any knowledge/skill prerequisites and, given the broadness of religions classifications, does not imply anything of the sort. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (1a)Category pages where users can identify their religion are obviously relevant to the encyclopedia as a collaborative tool. (1b)If I were to sport a category saying that I'm left-handed, would I be "soapboxing" for lefties? If I had a cat saying I'm a doctor, am I soapboxing for physicians? Obviously no. Identifying oneself isn't soapboxing, it's just... well, identifying oneself. Should we all be nice little Borg drones and renounce all types of identification? (2)You are conflating control of something potentially dangerous with pure, simple eradication. Guns and all sorts of weapons are controlled, and correctly so. I see no one outlawing gun altogether. (3)It is you bias that being part of a specific religion cannot confer any specific ability, skill or knowledge that may be useful to the encyclopedia. Other editors here have pointed out time and again that being part of a religion can confer specific knowledge (to some people) which may be useful in collaboration on articles on a religious subject.--Ramdrake 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        (1a) Numerous people have claimed a collaborative purpose, but no one has yet explained how it could be used for collaboration. ("Hey, I noticed that you self-identify as Christian ... want to collaborate on God?") Mere assertion in the absence of demonstration is not enough. (1b) OK, point taken. WP:NOT#SOCIALNET is the appropriate issue here, not WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. And, no, we shouldn't be drones and renounce all self-identification, but we should not self-identify for the sake of self-identification outside of the user namespace. Deleting the category is not the equivalent of disallowing people from stating their religious affiliation where it belongs: on their user page, user talk page, and user subpages. (2) How can these categories be "controlled"? It's possible to control distribution of a physical object (like a gun), but how can we control viewership of an online page and still remain free to public view? (3) The issue is not merely whether it confers knowledge to some, but whether it implies a conferral of knowledge to enough people to make the category useful. If "some" turns out to be 1 of every 100, the categories are not useful. My "bias", if that's what you want to call it, is that there is no significant relationship between religious affiliation and subject-specific encyclopedic knowledge (exclusive of personal observations and interpretations, which are original research). Though others have repeatedly asserted this type of connection, no one in this discussion has demonstrated it. Repeated assertion does not translate into fact. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Would it satisfy you to rename these categories as Users interested in... categories? — The Storm Surfer 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, since I do not think that affiliation implies interest. As I noted above, I have no problem with "Wikipedians interested in [religion]" categories. However, the categories in this nomination are not "by interest" categories since there is no reason to assume that people added themselves to these categories with the intent of expressing an interest in the subject, rather than a mere affiliation. Indeed, I think any merge would merely diminish the usefulness of the "by interest" categories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Category:Wikipedians interested in religions seems to only have four subcats right now. Were the rest deleted or something? — The Storm Surfer 09:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As far as I know, they just haven't been created. The fact of the matter is that almost all of the religion-related userboxes express an affiliation rather than an interest. I haven't checked them all, but I've looked at many (I even created the "interested in Hinduism" category based on a userbox that formerly categorised pages into Category:Hindu Wikipedians). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Actually, at least one of them has been used for canvassing. --SarekOfVulcan 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can somebody tell me why this group of categories should go through this exercize so soon after coming out of the last one, with only a vague unsubstantiated reference to some discussion? If there is no valid reason, would an admin please have the courage to close this as speedy keep as a plain and simple violation of consensus rules? Thanks!--Ramdrake 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to my reply above, please, and don't be so quick to call it 'unsubstantiated'. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 02.08.07 2200 (UTC)
  - Actually, the DRV verdict specifically kept two of the named categories because they were bona fide religions, and not pseudo-religions. This should be taken as a definite indication that these categories should be kept. A second nomination in less than six weeks does indeed look lke asking the other parent. I stand by my word that I find this UCfD unsubstantiated and unwarranted at this point.--Ramdrake 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It kept those two because they were real religions yes. Being a real religion is not inherently a reason to necessarily keep it on Wikipedia. Many of the voters in the UCFD and subsequent DRV said that they would feel differently if the real religions were up for deletion, and not segregating the real/fake ones. I agreed and did not feel it was our place to judge the legitimacy of a religion, so I went forward and nominated the "real" religions as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, but I still think six weeks is way too soon for consensus to change and borders on "asking the other parent". There is no evidence that consensus has changed, so the question shouldn't be asked again so soon. If you want proof of this, just look at the opinions on this page: there is a very nice consensus (not unanimous, but still) to keep.--Ramdrake 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it will help with collaboration on articles about a certain religion, if people used cats. Marlith ^T/C 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can understand that the requirement to control the usage of user categories is a growing need here lately. For example: Do we need a user category to reveal those users - "Who eat at Taco Bell on Friday Nights after a HS football game?" - just nonsense. There needs to be a defined line as where not to cross with user cats. However users who are serious about this project, who have identified themselves in a religious cat for the most part are willing to show their affiliation with that belief and not hide anything, and it doesn't mean that they edit without considering NPOV for their contribution. So what that someone a long while back used user cats to violate our canvass policy? So what if it was two hours ago? Did you know that cash is the most common form of currency to buy dope on the street? Let's burn cash money as the root of all evil. I don't want my post here to seem as a "wiki-lawyer" response to this CfD. My suggestion- go after those who violate our policy, simple as that. And, per WP:CANVASS - friendly notices are OK provided they are done with acceptable behavior. [3] For what it is worth, it seems the worst users who have contributed here to this venture never put themselves in a user category (or even put a user box on the userpage). They did their POV pushing to suit their own POV agenda by using their edits only. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Amadscientist 06:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all. Per comments of RockMFR and Kolindigo, respectively, above: "A discussion back in June was closed as delete, followed by an overturn at deletion review" and "... I don't see how that equals renominate it for deletion a month and a half later". It's too soon to revisit this and there is no evidence that consensus has changed. --DieWeisseRose 08:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. By nominating this again this soon, all the nominator has done is guarantee that someone will have to remove a lot of tags.--Mike Selinker 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Absolutely no place on Wikipedia for this stuff. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-identification fosters goodwill among volunteers and makes Wikipedia less hostile. No harm, no foul. Also, that this came up just a month ago and is being re-raised is abusive of the process. SchmuckyTheCat
- Not all self-identification fosters goodwill; some forms of self-identification can be downright divisive (e.g., most "support/oppose" categories and categories that divide editors on contentious issues). Whether or not this applies to religion categories is something we can disagree about. More importantly, deleting these categories has nothing to do with does not prevent users from expressing their religious affiliation. Editors can still express their affiliations on their userpages, user subpages, and user talk pages. However, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, personal self-identification merely for its own sake should be kept outside of the encyclopedia (broadly defined to include project pages, templates, images, and categories). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User templates, user images, and user categories are not part of the encyclopedia. You're right, we can agree to disagree about the rest. But people's beliefs are what divides us, that can't be denied, and shouldn't necessarily be shoved under the carpet. Nobody has a right not to be offended and especially not for something as acknowledged and important to the total of human culture as religion. SchmuckyTheCat

Weak delete. Not helpful to building an encyclopaedia, and causes some bad feeling. On the other hand, not particularly harmful to building an encyclopaedia (as long as they're not used for vote canvassing), and deleting may also cause some bad feeling, so it's just weak delete. ElinorD (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. And the pointless waste of time and energy continues. What satisfaction do men derive in needless destruction? These categories have not harmed the encyclopedia in any way, so why bother with trying to delete them again and again? Loom91 19:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Attacking the Wikipedia community only hinders our efforts to collaborate on an encyclopedia. Owen 03:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strike all of the above keep votes as WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:HARMLESS, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:JUSTAVOTE, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WaltCip 04:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see WP:WaltCip doesn't like it as a deletion criteria for user categories either. SchmuckyTheCat

Comment - WaltCip, your userpage is full of multiple userboxes and categories that appear very superficial. your comment applies to you as well. --Philip Laurence 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This will help us understand user biases, which will help us understand why someone tends to edit a certain way, which will help us improve Wikipedia (I think) Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a social network. However, Wikipedia is edited by humans. It is important to know the views of other editors. RS2007 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People in these categories do not necessarily know enough to cite themselves as references (which would be Original Research, as pointed out above). They do not even need to consider themselves exceptional in the field. However, members of these categories should at least be able to collaborate on improving related articles. This may be presumptuous of me to generalize, but we are mostly nerds here. We are intelligent (even if we do not always act like it). We have extensive libraries in the subject areas which interest us, and most other subject areas, besides. We read much and remember most of it. What I do not know, somebody else here remembers clearly. I would not expect that everybody in Category:Wikipedian Jimbologists would know everything about our intrepid leader, but I should at least be able to holler at them, "Hey! Any of you know where to to find that quote from Jimmy about userboxes?" and get a useful response or two. So, these categories can be used for collaboration. Getting people to make a habit of using these categories to work together will still require a feat of social engineering (the constructive variety, not the destructive variety), but that is beyond the point of this discussion. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Keep - it is important to know the views of other users, and these categories help. ~~Definitely bad faith nomination.~~ Pointless nomination. JRG 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are such things as userboxes and typed statements that let us know the views of others. ~~Also, your accusation of bad faith against the nominator seems to give rise to a pot-and-kettle situation. Have you perchance any proof for your accusation?~~ — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, the userboxes can tell us that - but what is wrong with having associated categories that categorise all users that have those userboxes? I don't see anything wrong with them. As to the bad faith, I retract that statement, but I still think the nomination is pointless and adds to the anti-religion stance on Wikipedia that I have seen in the past. JRG 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not aware of an anti-religion stance on Wikipedia. In any case, I do not see that the categories carry any added value ... there is little reason someone should/would browse through these categories looking for users of a specific religion. In response to your edit, I have stricken the latter of my part comment. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment on the discussion. The current 'tally' is 26-7 in favour of keeping. If XfD were a vote, this would be a clear "keep". However, let's look at the reasons offered for keeping:
1. Nine of the 'keep's are based on the idea that these categories reveal biases, a function which is better served by userboxes and text, and which is not the purpose of categories to begin with.
2. Six are based on variations of "we just did this" or "bad faith nom" (accusations without proof).
3. Four claim that the categories are "useful", but provide no explanation; assertion != demonstration.
4. Two claim that the categories are not harmful; harmlessness doesn't preclude uselessness.
5. Finally, two give absolutely no reason at all.
23 of the 26 "keeps" are, in one way or another, flawed. The other three make arguments that are slightly more convincing, but only tangentially address the fundamental issues raised: (1) Do these categories foster encyclopedic collaboration? (2) If so, how? (3) Are the benefits of having them (if any) greater than the costs? Although I don't expect that these categories will be deleted, I do not think a discussion filled with so many misconceptions, incomplete arguments, and logical fallacies can produce a consensus to "keep". — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While, we're at it, let's also explore the reasons people want the categories deleted:
Two invoke WP:NOT#SOCIAL without explaining how these categories can be used for social networking (rather than, say, your neighborhood Sunday Church).
One accuses the categories of being an abuse of the system, without ever explaining why.
Two are of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety.
Two find the categories not helpful, but only one can give a single, personal example.

So, six of the seven deletes are in one way or another flawed.

However, six of the "keep" votes pointed out that this is too soon for the categories to be renominated (it's been just over a month, and the proof is readily available in the UCFD and DRV archives). So, I see this going one of two ways: 1)An admin does the right thing and closes this according to the consensus to keep, or 2)In all likelihood, this will go to DRV, and is likely to be overturned again on the principle that a gross usurption of the consensus cannot be done unless there are overpowering arguments presented (none have been presented, on either side). If this were to come up again, so soon, on a category that went through this just over a month ago, I don't think I have to go into details as to how it would make all the regular UCFD crowd look like (you're free to draw your own conclusions). User Black Falcon is asking "Are the benefits of having them (if any) greater than the costs?". I'm asking: "What are the demonstrated costs of having them?" I don't think there is a demonstrated cost yet, so any potential benefit this may bring would be a a good reason to keep these categories. (Getting off my soapbox :)--Ramdrake 01:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

I get a soapbox too, you know :P

Actual proof of social networking is not needed to invoke WP:NOT#MYSPACE. If it cannot be shown that a category has any collaborative value, then that is enough.
As I stated above, I don't expect that these categories will be deleted. As you noted, a "delete" closure would be taken to DRV and most likely overturned. A this point, I'm not insisting on a "delete" closure; however, for the reasons stated above, I think a "keep" closure is also not warranted. As I see it, there is no consensus on the issue. Keeping has majority support, but few good arguments; deleting has the better arguments (in my view), but little actual support.
On the matter of cost, I do think that these categories carry a cost. They promote the "MySpace"-isation of Wikipedia, by permitting the use of categories for purposes other than encyclopedia-building; in particular, they permit the use of categories for the purpose of self-identification merely for its own sake.

Getting off soapbox

Getting on soapbox again ...

If the categories are kept (via a "keep" or "no consensus" result), I do not think they should be renominated en masse for at least a few months. Nominations of individual categories (especially to merge) are fine, but I do not think another mass nomination will accomplish much.

Function (soapbox) = off

Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your points one by one.

"If it cannot be shown that a category has any collaborative value, then that is enough." The point of these categories having collaborative value for several editors has been raised, but you dismiss it for lack of tangible proof. Just a reminder that absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence.
"On the matter of cost, I do think that these categories carry a cost. They promote the "MySpace"-isation of Wikipedia, by permitting the use of categories for purposes other than encyclopedia-building; in particular, they permit the use of categories for the purpose of self-identification merely for its own sake." Again, what is the cost to the project of this? It sounds to me like saying that fraternization isn't permitted at Wikipedia or that conversations around the water cooler should be forbidden. If that were so, why do we have a "Village Pump" in the first place?
If the categories are kept (via a "keep" or "no consensus" result), I do not think they should be renominated en masse for at least a few months." On this one, I couldn't agree with you more.

Getting off soapbox... CHOP! CHOP! CHOP!

Anybody want some good kindling wood? ;P

--Ramdrake 11:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would chop up a perfectly good soapbox for some firewood, even though we have Category:Wood?

Well, it's a good thing that anything done by an axe can be undone with a hammer and some nails (or maybe copious amounts of duct tape). ;-)

It's technically impossible to actually prove that a category has no collaborative potential. Since that is an impossible standard, it should not be used to determine inclusion/deletion of user categories. However, it can (in certain cases) be proven, or at least an argument made, that a category has collaborative merit. My problem with those arguments asserting usefulness is not the absence of proof of collaborative merit, but rather the absence of an argument as to how the categories might foster collaboration. When I wrote that "assertion != demonstration", I was merely asking for an explanation of how they are useful, not actual proof of usefulness (i.e. collaboration).
Not at all. Fraternisation and idle conversation is fine (even good/useful) ... and it takes place all the time (on project/article talk pages, in XfD debates, and so on). However, it always takes place in the context of something else: discussion about a policy, article, deletion, and so on. Even the "Village Pump" serves that type of purpose. What I do not think we should have are pages dedicated solely to active or passive fraternisation on topics that have no relevance to encyclopedia-building.

Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian rugby football fans and all subcats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus on national rugby union team fans, delete all others. Picaroon (t) 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being the fan of a particular rugby team does not faciliate collaboration. Wikipedia is not MySpace ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this nom includes:

Category:Wikipedian rugby league fans
Category:Wikipedian rugby union fans
Category:Wikipedian Illawarra Steelers fans
Category:Wikipedian Widnes Vikings fans
Category:Wikipedian National Rugby League fans
Category:Wikipedian Bradford Bulls fans
Category:Wikipedian Harlequins Rugby League fans
Category:Wikipedian Hull FC fans
Category:Wikipedian Leeds Rhinos fans
Category:Wikipedian Newtown Jets fans
Category:Wikipedian Sheffield Eagles fans
Category:Wikipedian Valleys Diehards fans
Category:Wikipedian Queensland Rugby League fans
Category:Wikipedian Queensland State of Origin fans
Category:Wikipedian Easts Tigers fans
Category:Wikipedian Norths Devils fans
Category:Wikipedian Mackay Sea Eagles fans
Category:Users who support St Helens RFC
Category:Users who support the Wakefield Trinity Wildcats
Category:Users who support the Wigan Warriors
Category:Wikipedian Super 14 fans
Category:Wikipedian national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian Stade Français fans
Category:Wikipedian Bath Rugby fans
Category:London Wasps Supporter
Category:Wikipedian Leicester Tigers fans
Category:Wikipedian Brisbane Broncos fans
Category:Wikipedian Canberra Raiders fans
Category:Wikipedian Canterbury Bulldogs fans
Category:Wikipedian Cronulla Sharks fans
Category:Wikipedian St George Illawarra Dragons fans
Category:Wikipedian Gold Coast Titans fans
Category:Wikipedian Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles fans

Category:Wikipedian Melbourne Storm fans
Category:Wikipedian New Zealand Warriors fans
Category:Wikipedian Newcastle Knights fans
Category:Wikipedian North Queensland Cowboys fans
Category:Wikipedian Parramatta Eels fans
Category:Wikipedian Penrith Panthers fans
Category:Wikipedian South Sydney Rabbitohs fans
Category:Wikipedian Sydney Roosters fans
Category:Wikipedian Wests Tigers fans
Category:Wikipedian Auckland Blues fans
Category:Wikipedian ACT Brumbies fans
Category:Wikipedian Bulls rugby fans
Category:Wikipedian Canterbury Crusaders fans
Category:Wikipedian Cats rugby fans
Category:Wikipedian Central Cheetahs fans
Category:Wikipedian Otago Highlanders fans
Category:Wikipedian Queensland Reds fans
Category:Wikipedian Sharks rugby fans
Category:Wikipedian Southern Spears fans
Category:Wikipedian New South Wales Waratahs fans
Category:Wikipedian Stormers fans
Category:Wikipedian Waikato Chiefs fans
Category:Wikipedian Wellington Hurricanes fans
Category:Wikipedian Western Force fans
Category:Wikipedian Australia national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian South Africa national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian New Zealand national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian France national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian Japan national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian Argentina national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian Scotland national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian Ireland national rugby union team fans
Category:Wikipedian Wales national rugby union team fans

All subcats should be tagged soon, left word with AMbot here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Wikipedian national rugby union team fans and all its sub-categories as these are likely to be usefull for collaboration. Delete the rest as their focus is too narrow to be useful for collaboration. --Bduke 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. This is a confusing mixture of rugby league and rugby union categories with everything in either Category:Wikipedian rugby league fans or Category:Wikipedian rugby union fans. Category:Wikipedian national rugby union team fans in the latter is populated by categories for fans of national teams. However, Category:Wikipedian National Rugby League fans in the former is not populated by fans of national teams and should be merged with Category:Wikipedian rugby league fans if these are kept.
Delete dosen't do much, I　don't think many people use it anyway. Marlith ^T/C 01:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, except those nominated for renaming below. Standard sports-team use of user category system.--Mike Selinker 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no harm. SchmuckyTheCat
I find Bduke's suggestion a reasonable compromise. My feelings on these categories are a bit mixed, but nothing so far has convinced me that the majority of the categories merit retention. The two "keep" comments above consist of a WP:NOHARM argument, which is effectively countered by the concerns regarding WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, and a comment that these are "standard" categories. Neither one of these comments really address the WP:NOT issue or considers that the categories, while perhaps standard or not actively harmful, may be useless (or not of sufficient use to merit existence). So, weak delete all except Category:Wikipedian national rugby union team fans, on which I offer no opinion (pro or con). If that one is kept, it should be made a direct subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams, so that the two intermediary cats can be avoided. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM is an article space criteria. These are user space categories. Is anyone abusing these categories instead of working on the project? Without evidence of that WP:NOT#SOCIALNET isn't applicable either, besides, that is a behavior guide, not a deletion/inclusion criteria. SchmuckyTheCat
  - WP:NOHARM is written specifically for articles, but I think the principle applies to all non-userspace pages. As for your other point, evidence of abuse is not required to invoke WP:NOT#SOCIALNET if it is argued that a page does not further the goals of the project. Userpages that are set up like MySpace accounts (e.g., a user creates the page with links to his/her blog, MySpace page, and so on, and never actually edits outside the userspace) aren't actively being abused, but are still deleted. Finally, as I noted above, harmlessness does not imply usefulness. Harmless clutter is deleted all the time as part of routine maintenance; in a sense, the existence of clutter (defined as pages that serve no useful purpose) is itself harmful in that it reduces navigability, distracts editors, and creates confusion about what type of pages should exist. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "and never actually edits outside the userspace)" Right, that is user behavior we want to channel into working on the project, but that is user behavior. Users who are actively editing, and happen to put a category on their page about a ball team haven't done any harm. Deleting this from their page is negative behavior from the project. It's discouraging. Why do we want to act like dictators to actively editing users who are simply showing camaraderie between their mates? SchmuckyTheCat
      - Despite the leading nature of the question ("Why do we want to act like dictators ..."), I'll answer. Firstly, because Wikipedia is not a social networking site. If a user wants to show camaraderie, s/he is more than welcome to do so via userboxes and typed statements in "their" userspace. The purpose of categories is navigation and collaboration, not provision of a full profile of personal likes and dislikes. (I might like to bond with people who think that Mediterranean cuisine is the best in the world, but an encyclopedia project is not the most appropriate place for such bonding. At the least, I would restrict such bonding to user and user talk pages.) Secondly, the absolute majority of userpages in user categories are there because of userboxes, which too frequently comes with categories attached. In most cases, there is no need to edit a userpage to remove these kinds of categories. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If a userbox is broken, fix the userbox. If that makes this problem go away then this problem isn't a problem for UCFD. A statement on a userpage stating a preference for a sport team is enthusiastic, but it is not camaraderie. If I need to find someone interested in a sports team, eg to fix a vandalized article where it is no longer certain which edits among multiple IPs is accurate, then how do I navigate towards those fans to ask them to collaborate and fix the article? Far too often I've left talk page messages on the article only to see it languish for months. But people RESPOND to direct queries, so how do I find them? SchmuckyTheCat
        Simple: you make a Wikiproject. The fact that anyone can be a fan does not necessarily mean that they are willing to collaborate on such topics - for that, you need an analyst or a researcher. Nobody joins a user category becoming a "fan" and expects someone to jump on their talk page and say "Hey, I need your help on this article, can you verify this, find a reliable source for that, etc." so this is the incorrect category for such a thing. A Wikiproject, on the other hand, finds a narrower scope and associates people who are willing to analyze and edit. If the Wikiproject fails, be bold; research stuff on your own.--WaltCip 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        May I also add that if you put as much effort into editing articles for Wikipedia as you would for a college thesis, we wouldn't need user categories.--WaltCip 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fun, but not needed. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, pointless, SqueakBox 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 1[edit]

Category:Users who support St Helens RFC[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete (as extension of August 2 debate on all such categories.) Picaroon (t) 04:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rename Category:Users who support St Helens RFC to Category:Wikipedian St Helens RFC fans

Rename Category:Users who support the Wakefield Trinity Wildcats to Category:Wikipedian Wakefield Trinity Wildcats fans

Rename Category:Users who support the Wigan Warriors to Category:Wikipedian Wigan Warriors fans

Rename all as nom, per the convention of Category:Wikipedian rugby league fans. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Speedy really. --Bduke 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, supporting a particular team does not foster contribution. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then you should nominate Category:Wikipedian rugby league fans and all its sub-categories. This proposal is just about bringing three of them in line with all the others. I am neutral about whether they all should be deleted, but there is no case for just deleting these three. --Bduke 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really sick and tired of all of the "You can't delete this unless you delete X, Y, and Z" arguments. First of all, it's flat out wrong. We do delete things without deleting certain other things all the time, so your fallacious argument fails in light of the evidence. Secondly, deletion is not an all or nothing proposition. We can delete some stuff now and other stuff later. We don't have to do it all at once. Just because we haven't gotten to other stuff yet doesn't mean we can't get to this stuff now. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether you are "sick and tired of" something is not an argument. I suggest merely that it is better process to look at them all together, particularly in a case like this where the nominator did not even mention deletion. Doing stuff piecewise leads often to a lack of cohesion and should be avoided where possible, as it very clearly could be here. --Bduke 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see above, thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Puts these in line with the others.--Mike Selinker 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Userboxes per location/Brazil/Types[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category serves no purpose. As far as I can tell, it was created mistakenly by a user who wanted to place him/herself in Category:Wikipedians in Brazil. The creator has been inactive since early June.

Delete as nom. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Wikipedians in Brazil. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 02.08.07 0021 (UTC)
Merge or Delete. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Christian User[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Christian Wikipedians, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is no reason the two categories should exist separately. Aside from the creator, User:Angel David, the only user in the category is User:Lsi john, whose userpage was added to the category by Angel David (see diff). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such users (j/k). Grue 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categories, no potential for collaboration. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to avoid duplication and enhance consistency. --Dweller 10:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categories per ^demon. -- Jelly Soup 00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; unencyclopedic categories are an abuse of the category system and must be dealt with. --Cyde Weys 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as dup, per nom.
merge sure, organization is useful. SchmuckyTheCat
Speedy merge per nom; There's no need to consider deleting this separate from the ongoing discussion about deleting Christian Wikipedians. — The Storm Surfer 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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