Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/January 2008

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2007 February 2008 >

January 25[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like Rene Magritte[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 discussion was Delete - jc37 10:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Rene Magritte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per numerous past precedent, it is not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize by individual. VegaDark (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't say that the statement made by the nom is always going to be true. If there were a good number of articles specifically relating to one person then I could see such a category being used for collaboration. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → nom. Snowolf How can I help? 21:03, 1 February 2008 (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.

January 24[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like X[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 discussion was delete. →AzaToth 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like 2001: A Space Odyssey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Dr. Strangelove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Airplane! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like High School Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Gone With the Wind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Spaceballs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Mrs. Doubtfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Memento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Magnolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Precedent to delete this type of category at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project. As per that discussion, it does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual movies they like, as such categories would only facilitate collaboration on one or few articles (In this case, I realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey has more than one movie in the series, however there is no indication that this category is for those who like anything other than the original). Additionally, keeping such categories would allow for creation of thousands of similar categories, one for every movie out there. Further, categorizing "who likes" movies is unproductive for the encyclopedia as people who like movies by no means necessarily want to collaborate on them. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing by preference has its uses, but not when it get this specific. - Koweja (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same thing applies to the others. - Koweja (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If I had a category on my userpage for everything I liked, it would be nothing but categories. And as Vegadark points out, just because I like something doesn't mean I have the knowledge or desire to collaborate on it. --Kbdank71 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All Wikipedians who like X discussions were merged on 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete all These categories are too narrow for collaboration. I support deletion of all of them, but might be persuaded by a strong argument for the two movies with sequels (2001 and Airplane), but I don't suspect that one will be forthcoming. Horologium (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope we don't have to go through this many more times. As I explained last time, there are like 17 pages related to High School Musical. Not checking the other films to make sure they don't have a substantial amount. –Pomte 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • High School Musical appears as good a name for the franchise as any other. According to High School Musical (disambiguation), that name could refer to 10 works. Any reasonable rename should be fine. –Pomte 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category links to High School Musical, not the disambiguation page, so a rename to be more broad might not accurately reflect the user's intent. VegaDark (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just expanded the scope of the category in a way that does not exclude any original intent, while encapsulating them all. –Pomte 01:31, 25 January 2008 (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 The Simpsons Movie[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 discussion was delete. →AzaToth 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Precedent to delete this type of category at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project. As per that discussion, it does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual movies they like, as such categories would only facilitate collaboration on one or few articles. Additionally, keeping such categories would allow for creation of thousands of similar categories, one for every movie out there. Further, categorizing "who likes" movies is unproductive for the encyclopedia as people who like movies by no means necessarily want to collaborate on them. Alternatively, merging to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons would be fine as well. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, though I would say delete both the movie and franchise (though it isn't nominated, so either is acceptable for now). - Koweja (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above. --Kbdank71 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons (second choice) as per VegaDark. An astonishing number of articles exist on Wikipedia which relate to The Simpsons, so a stronger argument exists for merging this into Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons, rather than simply deleting it as the above categories. I'm not going to go digging through the members to check, but I seriously doubt that there are any members of the movie group that would object to being categorized under the series group. Horologium (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (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.

January 21[edit]

Category:Queer 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 discussion was moved to deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2008 (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.

January 20[edit]

Category:Sandbox[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete - consensus is clear for this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, I don't see how this could possibly be needed. -- Prove It (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't really help collaboration. People should be using either the Wikipedia sandbox or their own, not looking for other people's to use. - Koweja (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't see why one would need to search for other sandboxes, which would be the whole point of a category. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use Wikipedia's or your own. Basically per Koweja. --Kbdank71 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Users can use their sandboxes to experiment with different concepts that they might not be too familiar with - such as learning to put together things like tables and templates before they think they would be able to sufficiently competent to create them in template/name space. It could be useful for experienced users to look through these pages, see what the user is trying to do and then offer help and advice. Guest9999 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of having this be used for having a list of sandboxes, which I agree is pointless, it is a handy category to use for testing category alpha sort keys. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brings up a good point. There are the official and unofficial sandboxen, which are essentially articles. Should we have a category sandbox to test category functionality? --Kbdank71 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not necessary to create a category page to use the category name to test category functionality. See Category:Foo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is fine for you or me, but someone who is new isn't going to know they can use that for testing. --Kbdank71 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sandboxes shouldn't be categorized, and only four users have made use of it (out of the thousands of users with userspace works in progress). Horologium (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as unnecessary. User:Dorftrottel 07:59, January 25, 2008
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 19[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who curse[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 discussion was Delete. The only argument put forward to keep this is that the category can lighten the mood on WIkipedia. However, the consensus within the debate disagreed with that, failing to find any collaborative use for the category. I believe anyone reading the debate will concur that the consensus is fucking obvious. Hiding T 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't think of how it would be helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (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.

January 17[edit]

Trout 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 discussion was much whacking and slapping with various flora and fauna of the depths. Looking through the debate and trying to discern something resembling consensus, I think the best we can all agree on is that Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping be renamed as Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Beyond that, there's no consensus to delete anything. To quote Monty Python, "Right stop this! You're getting far too silly". I'd advise leaving off nominating these for much for a while, simply because, to return to Python, "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Hiding T 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per Hiding's closing statement. I propose that these categories be renamed to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout whacking and Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking, respectively, in accordance with WP:TROUT and this discussion. :-) - ∅ (∅), 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "whacking", per nom. - jc37 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename second cat to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, keep slapping over whacking on both. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Traditionally, the usage has been "whacking". See also WP:TROUT, which is the source of the category reference. - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge Both to "Wikipedians", not bothered about whacking v. slapping —Ashley Y 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh - the regular nominations of one or the other "trout" categories is becoming tiresome. And, considering that many previous editors have expressed interest in it, I suggest all the more that those editors be notified. Now, to address the nomination: It is true that, traditionally, the usage at WP:TROUT has been "whacking"; it is also true that, traditionally, the usage at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and The Fish-Slapping Dance (most probably the inspiration for the original page) has been "slapping". Since no one has consulted with the people who actually use the category, I submit that the first category not be renamed and the second category be renamed to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. --Iamunknown 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Traditionally"? The admin (the older of the two) has been around all of a month. WP:TROUT has been around for over a year (and I believe that the usage of "whacking with a wet trout" predates that page). And I don't think either form had an source in The Fish-Slapping Dance. According to one admin, the word "slap" may have come from an IRC command. - jc37 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you asked the opinion of editors and admins who use the categories? --Iamunknown 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suppose (since we're being technical), we should note that "trout slapping" or "trout whacking" isn't clear if one is doing harm to the trout, or if the trout is doing the harm. Also, there is nothing about being whacked with a trout which is specific to adminship. Therefore... - jc37 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Wikipedians open to being whacked with a wet trout, per Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout. (Though my first preference is still to delete as a potentially all-inclusive category.) - jc37 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename to Wikipedians open to.... WODUP 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no need the need to have both a Wikipedian and an admin category. Regarding slap vs. whack, I have no opinion. WODUP 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them both and stop the nonsense. What purpose does this category serve? The most this category does is group editors who are willing to have a image of a trout on their talk page with the caption "Whack!" under it. If for whatever reason you keep the nonsense, merge the two categories and keep the crap to a minimum. — Save_Us † 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rename to Wikipedians open to..., as there is no purpose served in this context to segregating the two. In re: Whacking versus Slapping, the thicker-sounding tonal qualities of a Whack (i.e. the proverbial "Wet Thud") have more depth than the sharp, higher pitched tone of a slap, and thus the Whack would appear to be superior for these purposes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the second to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, leave the first alone per Iamunknown. east.718 at 00:22, January 22, 2008
  • Rename second per east718. And slap/whack all involved with a trout. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category: Wikipedians open to sea bass slapping - Clearly sea bass foster a more collaborative enviornment than trouts. After that, delete them both. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rename to Category:Wikipedias open to being slapped with possibly still living sea life - I truly resent the divisiveness displayed above and the sheer bigotry of those who refuse to accept that I might want to sometimes be slapped with say a nice fat salmon or even a rather large bit of kelp.Wjhonson (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion and whack everyone involved in this discussion with a large wet trout, for wasting their time discussing this superfluous UCFD when they could have been working on the encyclopedia. Pointless user categories are not actually detrimental to the encyclopedia's quality, thus nominating it for deletion is considerably more pointless than the category itself. WaltonOne 13:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. "Hey, I'm open to trout slapping." "Hey, me too." "Um, ok." Completely pointless. Collaboration is nil. Go do something constructive. --Kbdank71 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh for goodness sake. The admin category was created in three seconds to encourage admins to remember to be responsive to constructive criticism even if they were not open to the "recall" bureaucracy. What's the problem? Why do people keep wanting to make some issue of it...CfD...DRV and now this???? Any why not attempt to discuss it with those using it before running here? speedy close and slap/whack the nominator hard.--Docg 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Constructive criticism, like some of the comments above? Where is the category to encourage people to remember to WP:AGF? --Kbdank71 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, tell me, when an attempt to delete this has already been overturned, what is the good faith motivation of this new one?--Docg 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you even read the nomination, or just blindly vote to whack the nominator? It's not to delete, it's to rename. I wanted them deleted, as I believe they are useless. --Kbdank71 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both no indication of encouraging collaboration. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so, I have indicated that the intention was to encourage admins to collaborate with constructive criticism.--Docg 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then "Admins who will collaborate with constructive criticism" would be an appropriate name. Trout slapping is deliberately obscure, culturally biased and encourages violent language, all of which are detrimental to the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You take constructive criticism, you don't collaborate with it. --Kbdank71 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - To decrease the possibility that trout-slapping might be seen by some out-culture editors as violent and obscure, I recommend a rename to Category:Wikipedias open to constructive criticism, without one bit of trout in itWjhonson (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism by all means create it as an alternative. If you want Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking create that too (here I'll even do it for you, since there is obvious demand). Violent? Get a grip!--Docg 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay mister person, now you've gone and forced me to do it. Category:Wikipedians_open_to_constructive_criticismWjhonson (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us who will accept only trouts and not words, Category:Administrators not open to constructive criticism. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2008 (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 autograph pages[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 discussion was No consensus. There's as many good arguments put forward to keep as there are to delete. Pomte makes a good point regarding a use for them, and since that isn't really answered, even though there are good arguments to delete the categories, there's no clear consensus on the lack of utility to the encyclopedia and the community building it, and thus no consensus to delete. Hiding T 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOT#SOCIAL. The old claim that such things should be tolerated as facilitating colloaboration and a positive community spirit are discredited e.g. by the fact that only a tiny minority wants them, and also by the verifiable fact that too many users included there also display a liking for fancy signatures rather than e.g. encyclopedic standards. User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

  • Delete category as it has nothing to do with collaboration. That said, it seems like you, Dorftrottel, are trying to get all of the autograph pages themselves deleted, rather than just the category. If that is the case, you need to nominate them at WP:MFD instead of here. Your reasoning probably won't be good enough as fancy signatures and things only used by a minority are acceptable. - Koweja (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're partially right in that I'm generally opposed to the use of Wikipedia for socialisation that has nothing to do with creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. I probably wouldn't go so far as to put any such subpages up for deletion though. Deleting the category is sufficient to prevent the wrong impression that WP:NOT#SOCIAL doesn't matter anymore, and to clearly state that user categories even more than subpages in userspace should only exist to ease and facilitate collaboration. User:Dorftrottel 21:51, January 17, 2008
  • Weak keep - Noting that even User:Jimbo Wales has been known to sign such pages. As such, it's probably fair to keep the category for nav purposes. See also: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/May 2007#Category:Wikipedian Autograph Pages. - jc37 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, yeah, Jimbo. I don't want to say that I sometimes doubt his good judgment, but as a matter of fact I do. User:Dorftrottel 21:42, January 17, 2008
    Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books, which also had a Deletion review. (Scroll down the page to find it.) - jc37 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A major argument in the MfD was that the autograph pages themselves are in userspace. But having a category is another thing entirely. User:Dorftrottel 22:23, January 17, 2008
  • Keep as tracking category so the next time someone decides to nominate the pages, they can find most of them. This is ironically the non-mainspace collaborative purpose. Nom has not discredited its supposed advantage of bringing about a positive community spirit, as the interest in encyclopedic standards is not a necessary condition for this spirit. The fact that only a tiny minority wants them is positive, whereas deletion would be negative towards their purpose while they still exist. –Pomte 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting reasoning, similar to what you said at the last nomination. Do you suggest deletion of those user subpages? I don't particularly mind them and would probably never nominate such a page myself, and they would probably not be deleted anyway judging by the Autograph books MfD from last year. In my opinion, as long as they stay out of any serious encyclopedic area, people can have them. User:Dorftrottel 04:14, January 18, 2008
      • So if the pages are kept, then they supposedly serve some purpose, and WP:NOT#SOCIAL, by lack of consensus, doesn't apply to them as a whole, so a grouping of them should inherit this property. And if the MfD folk become aware of this, there'll be lots more keep votes here for the same reason. Category:Wikipedians appears to not be a serious encyclopedic area (any time there's wider community input on user categories, that's what they seem to say). It's odd how much time is spent interlinking these pages. The easiest way to prevent people from doing this is to have a centralized category for navigation. –Pomte 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that the category in and by itself specifically advances the use of Wikipedia for pure socialising. Per WP:NOT#SOCIAL, I'm admittedly not very fond of autograph pages, but having a user category for it should really be out of the question. What concerns me about your line of reasoning is that you IMHO appear to be trying to sound neutral in your assessment when you're actually in favour of discarding WP:NOT#SOCIAL as a general understanding among Wikipedians.
          "there'll be lots more keep votes" — This is not a vote, or so I hope. People arriving in force to keep their favourite aspect of Wikipedia from being properly deleted must be ignored unless they present valid arguments. Number should play no role. If a majority thinks WP:NOT#SOCIAL should be discarded, that's still a bad idea. That's the one single notion behind consensus-building. Present arguments, or don't post at all. Personal liking that has nothing to do with building and maintaining an encylopedic project can play no part in determining consensus.
          The matter of fact is that this category justifies questionable habits, serves no collaborative purpose, and should therefore be deleted fully independent from any user subpage MfD.
          "The easiest way to prevent people from doing this is to have a centralized category for navigation." — Be honest: have you ever made use of this category for that purpose? User:Dorftrottel 19:42, January 18, 2008
          • I don't see how signing a page is socializing or advances pure socializing. Typing a short message and four tildes is not directly a way to make friends or find people with similar interests. About the "advancing" part, the community still can and has deleted more improper uses of the user namespace.
          • Literally, there's nothing in NOT#SOCIAL about this. Whether autograph pages are "relevant to working on the encyclopedia" is as debatable as the case for userboxes, userpage bios, secret userpages, wikilove, smiles, user categories, etc. I'm not a sociologist and don't see evidence either way. Here's a hypothesis: When one's own autograph page receives signatures, one's encyclopedic spirit rises in turn increasing motivation, dedication, etc; signing another's autograph page is a way to keep cool from wikistress during a content dispute elsewhere. This is as convincing as your claim that "only a tiny minority wants them", which isn't backed up here.
          • If you think this category justifies questionable habits, get those habits deleted at source. You imply that fancy signatures are also questionable, and I would agree with you, except many prolific editors have ridiculous signatures as well, and some sign autograph pages.
          • Where NOT#SOCIAL says "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration," this is tricky again because having an autograph page as one of one's many user subpages doesn't make one's focus to be on social networking. An autograph page is certainly not by itself a foundation for effective collaboration, but it can be one of many factors in contributing to effective collaboration overall throughout the encyclopedia.
          • ILIKEIT keep !votes should certainly be ignored, but unfortunately that doesn't happen with some pages outside mainspace. It becomes a vote.
          • No, I haven't used this category for any purpose because I have no interest in autograph pages. But I have just used it to address the issue. –Pomte 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just a General reminder to editors, please note that the discussion is about the Category and not user autograph pages themselves.

    I created this category since I thought it would be a good idea to bring together all the wikipedians with such pages, since such a concept facilitates collaboration and better communication between wikipedia editors. For one, many pages could do with more experienced editors taking a look and improving that. And anyone who has created or tried to build a page knows how difficult that is. This offers one way of actually getting in more people and collaborating. The category helps by bringing together experience and channeling it.

    Wikipedia:NOT#SOCIALNET points out that "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." I think that this category does exactly that. As to the argument that its not effective in collaboration, I think we should not judge that so soon. Everything on wikipedia takes time to gain momentum, and coming to a decision about this less than 2 months after creation would be difficult. However, anything that brings together experienced editors is something that should be kept.

    The disadvantage is probably that it makes it easier for spamming, but I'd think that that is a minor irritant when looking at the obvious advantages of getting more people in touch. Plus, you need to discover an autograph page first to discover the category.

    Cheers,
    Sniperz11talk|edits 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facilitates collaboration? How? VegaDark (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "anything that brings together experienced editors is something that should be kept" — With all due respect, I don't see too many exceptionally experienced users in the category.
        "I think that this category does exactly that." — You're not stating what it is that makes you think so.
        "obvious advantages of getting more people in touch" — User categories should serve a purpose beyond simply "getting more people in touch", that's the very point of WP:NOT#SOCIAL. User:Dorftrottel 05:08, January 18, 2008
        • True, Dorftrottel. Right now, If I remember correctly, there are only around 30,000 regular editors (more than 100 edits a month) to wikipedia (out of 6 million registered users). Now, for over 2 million pages, thats a very small number of experienced editors. Your point about exceptionally experienced editors is not true. True, most users in the category have not gone beyond 1000 mainspace edits, but quite a few are very close. If we can get these users talking and discussing wikipedia, I think something can be accomplished.

          Whats more, far too many important pages lack experienced editors who can actually add substantial material. You may argue that there are other ways of getting help, but most of the time, the assistance is only with formatting and correcting grammer and organization; which is fine, but not very useful in improving start pages. In such cases, such communities surely help, since most editors who have their autograph subpages are experienced and regular editors to boot.

          User categories should serve a purpose beyond simply "getting more people in touch", that's the very point of WP:NOT#SOCIAL. Agreed, and true. Thats exactly what I referred to with spamming- simply saying hi isn't what this is for, and it shouldn't be encouraged. But when regular editors talk, it rarely goes beyond discussing wikipedia itself. Anything that brings these opinions together should, in my opinion, be encouraged. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "If we can get these users talking and discussing wikipedia" — Wikipedia offers a great infrastructure to help people learn the ropes (e.g. the pages linked to from {{Welcome}} which can be found on virtually all new user talk pages) and provides the proper venues to discuss each and any aspect of it (e.g. WP:VP), seek help (e.g. WP:HD), or ask all sorts of questions related to editing (e.g. WP:EA). If you feel any link of extraordinary importance and helpfulness for new users is missing from the welcome template, just fix it.

            "You may argue that there are other ways of getting help " — Indeed, and all of them are better in that they are frequented by a far greater number of users, including many admins (there's only one single admin currently in the autograph category).

            "most of the time, the assistance is only with formatting and correcting grammer and organization" — Not true at all. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

            "improving start pages" — Start pages? Do you mean help with new articles? See e.g. Wikipedia:Your first article which provides useful information assembled by many users with extensive experience.

            "In such cases, such communities surely help" — Not to unnecessarily split hairs, but if you just assert this without providing any example, your point boils down to a mere assumption of yours.

            "most editors who have their autograph subpages are experienced and regular editors to boot." — We're discussing the category, and the majority of users included there is not very experienced. The fact that only one single admin has included himself is just one indicator of the truly unencyclopedic nature of this category. User:Dorftrottel 21:36, January 18, 2008
  • Delete contrary to my usual position on this sort of matter, I think these do harm the image of the Encyclopedia. They indicate an excessive concern for the social aspects and do not help even the most informal cooperation. I have friends here too, and I remember who they are, and keep track of them through my watchlist, and chat with them on email. We certainly do want users, and new users in particular to get in touch with other editors, but this is done by cooperation on projects and building and discussing articles. DGG (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as long as these pages exist as a tracking category per Pomte. Ideally I'd like to see these deleted as well, but as long as they are here I think the category is useful to group them. An argument for deleting would be that grouping makes it easier for editors to find such pages, thus further encouraging time wasting as opposed to actual encylopedia work. Another argument would be that a category "legitimizes" such pages, possibly encouraging the creation of more. An argument for keeping is that it makes it easier to find the next time an MfD comes along for these. I think the benefits of keeping slightly outweigh the costs, since I'd like to see these MfD'd again some time in the future. Editors that want to waste time signing every autograph page may very well just spend even more time trying to find such pages if this category is deleted, as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per Jimbo Wales:

    "You keep asking how they [autograph pages] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"

    --ChetblongTalkSign 19:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not discussing the autograph pages themselves here, this is not WP:MfD. This discussion is only about the category, so your reasoning is not valid as an argument in this discussion. User:Dorftrottel 20:36, January 20, 2008
      • True, but the nom you made is talking about the pages themselves. From my POV autograph pages help make a friendly environment among editors, therefore helping with building an encyclopedia. If I was to leave my POV behind on the matter, I could see how some people can misuse these pages and use them for purely social matters, but these pages can help Wikipedians know each other better and therefore can help collaboration among editors. This category helps in that respect by allowing editors find places where they can put a friendly greeting down and ~~~~, it's not a place to chat or have a lengthy conversation about things unrelated to Wikipedia since most editors only put their sig down once with a friendly message. I don't see how this hurts Wikipedia in any way and that's why I voted keep. ChetblongTalkSign 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At any rate, the point about Esperanza in that quote is ironic. –Pomte 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was agreed upon in the Signature page MFD that they could be kept, so long as there was nothing linking them to each other. · AndonicO Hail! 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't have an opinion on the pages themselves, I don't think a category is needed. --Kbdank71 18:45, 23 January 2008 (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 skill[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 discussion was keep as a group, without prejudice of re-nominating individual categories in the future. VegaDark (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by skill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians by profession, and more trivial and subjective at that. The only half-way plausible subcategory which should definitely be kept is Category:Wikipedian translators (subcat of Category:Wikipedia translation). The rest should either be deleted or, if not already, included in Category:Wikipedians by profession instead. [See detailed proposal above] User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

  • Neutral note - If you wish to have any of the subcats modified as a result of this nomination (renamed/merged/deleted/whatever) then each must be tagged, else no action will be taken. - jc37 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I tried my best to sort this out. User:Dorftrottel 20:12, January 17, 2008
      • They should be tagged as {{cfd-user|Category:Wikipedians by skill}}. I did the first one as an example. Otherwise they do not link directly to this discussion. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I highly doubt any of these categories will be UpMerged to a WikiProject membership category, due to the possibility of miscategorisation. And you might think about splitting at least a couple off to their own nominations (such as what seems to be the intent to UpMerge the subcats of Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files to their parent). I've found that, unless you wish a result of No Consensus, it's usually better to split noms for clarity. Though you are welcome, of course, to do as you will, in the respect, and hope for the best. - jc37 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Neutral. If you're looking for someone who can help with preparing media for an article, Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors and Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files could be useful; keep them. For the rest, I am neutral, although I don't see any actual reason proposed for the deletions. Anomie⚔ 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as long as those specified above are moved. David Fuchs (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, maybe rename, maybe reparent, and merge a few. It seems inappropriate to relocate Category:Wikipedians by skill categories under Category:Wikipedians by profession, as members of those categories may not exercise that particular skill in a professional setting. It may be appropriate to multi-parent some of them; that can probably be best handled by people with a better familiarity with the subjects. Most of those could probably do well under Category:Wikipedians by interest.
    Specific responses... Category:Wikipedian amateur radio operators should definitely be kept, and by definition (and licensing requirements) would be totally inappropriate under Category:Wikipedians by profession. I do question the value of Category:Wikipedian podcasters; I see it as slightly narrower than the nonexistent and patently useless Category:Wikipedian bloggers. Maybe podcasting is still a sufficiently uncommon activity that the analogy fails, though. The two diving categories (Category:Wikipedian divers and Category:Wikipedian underwater divers) should probably be merged. We could probably conscript the members of Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors and merge that category with the above-mentioned Category:Wikigraphist, but it is probably best to just leave it as is. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not demonstrate how those categories you would prefer kept help with collaboration. Just for example, being an amateur radio operator is not a skill, it's a hobby. That's my basic contention: that the parent category is a total (and probably deliberate) misnomer: It should properly be called Category:Wikipedians by hobby, then the inherent inapproporiateness would become immediately apparent.
      Apart from the—in itself already deletion-justifying—fact that none of these categories contain any straightforwardly stated or plausibly construable interest in collaboration on a defined set of articles, the problem with hobbies is that they contain only very subjective assertions of some non-professional knowledge (as opposed to professional education/occupation). Thus, they're not useful for maintaining the encyclopedia and should be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 18:25, January 18, 2008
      • I fail to completely understand your confusion, but perhaps it may be useful for you to recognize that a skill is not the ability to perform a single task, but a collection of related abilities. One use for any Category:Wikipedians by skill category is the same as the primary use for most Category:Wikipedians by profession categories: find somebody who has knowledge of a particular area. For other possible uses, consult your own creativity. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can see utility. If I'm looking for someone with knowledge of amateur radio I know where to look, don't I. I just navigate through the categories until I find the right grouping of users sharing information through the category structure to better facilitate improvement of the encyclopedia. Hiding T 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How often have you made concrete use of that, within Category:Wikipedians by skill? Any specific example would be welcome, I'm eager to let myself be convinced. User:Dorftrottel 19:28, January 18, 2008
      • Can you show me where you have asked this question of all Wikipedians? Otherwise, I fail to understand why my experience is so valued above all others. Hiding T 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because you're posting it here as an argument? The question extends to anyone who may yet arrive to weigh in on the discussion. They would be asked the same question, so as to gauge the validity of that specific argument. You just happen to be the first to bring it up. If you have never used this category for any such purpose, the current sample would be: zero of one people who state this rationale to keep can underscore its validity by presenting a single example for it. User:Dorftrottel 20:58, January 18, 2008
          • Sorry, I'm not clear on how your question impacts on the validity of my argument. Are you suggesting that this category does not make it easier to find people with knowledge of amateur radio? Hiding T 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Certainly it does make it easier. I just don't see it happening in reality, esp. not for collaborative purposes. And since there's no declaration of interest in contributing to related articles, the category appears like pure vanity to me. I prefer arguments backed up by evidence. In this discussion, the burden of evidence actually lies with the category, to prove its actual and everyday usefulness for the encyclopedia beyond mere assumptions of how it might be used. I wouldn't object to any such category if it contained a commitment to improve related articles, ideally as a WikiProject membership group, but if such a commitment were the reason for the existence of the category, something to that effect would be included already. User:Dorftrottel 22:06, January 18, 2008
              • The burden of proof lies with those seeking deletion, as can be seen through the fact that a consensus must be generated to do so, otherwise the item under discussion is kept. Hiding T 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I beg to differ. All Wikipedia pages should serve a collaborative purpose. If such purpose is not present, the default is they shouldn't exist. In my opinion, a reason to keep those categories has to be demonstrated by those wanting to keep them. Otherwise, we'd be stuck with an ever-increasing, unsurmountable status quo. Oh, wait... User:Dorftrottel 22:29, January 18, 2008
                  • I can't see a speedy criteriion which states that any page which has no collaborative purpose should be deleted, which seems to indicate the opposite of what you state. I also hope you are not suggesting you are the arbiter of what is collaborative? As to the ever increasing insurmountable status quo, I am unclear. To my eye that appears an oxymoron, since something which increases cannot stay static. Hiding T 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The participants in this discussion are the arbiters for this specific case. The criterion I mentioned is not to be found at WP:CSD, try WP:ENC. And increasing status quo means that the number of bad things that cannot be abolished or changed due to vocal resistance lacking valid arguments is steadily increasing: More and more things are settling on a status quo and then cannot ever be changed again, that's what I meant. User:Dorftrottel 00:41, January 19, 2008
  • Keep all, tho a few need renaming. DGG (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many differences between having a certain skill and having it be a profession. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, can we at least rename the parent cat to Category:Wikipedians by hobby as a more accurate name? User:Dorftrottel 05:44, January 19, 2008
  • Keep all and considering renaming some individual categories, as with DGG. --Iamunknown 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'm ok with a rename if it's needed. I can see the collaborative purpose to these. --Kbdank71 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are too many proposals here, with too many different remedies for a single nomination. Try splitting them up into separate noms for deletions, renames, and merges, which make discussion much easier. I think I support some of these proposals, but I don't want to list each of them separately. Horologium (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (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:Motorcycle owners[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 discussion was Speedy delete db-author. - jc37 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorcycle owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Less appropriate than and [partially] redundant to Category:WikiProject Motorcycling members. User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

  • NOT redundant as not all motorcycle owners are members of the Motorcycling WikiProject. However, as the creator, I agree that it is not appropriate as Wikipedia is not a social networking site. DELETE per creator. Gr0ff (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (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.

January 16[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 discussion was Delete, unproductive WP:POINT violation. Nakon 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians[edit]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification

Per the arguments that led to the deletions of all the categories listed at that deletion debate, this category and related categories should also be deleted. Avruchtalk 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is apparently far more controversial and divisive than the category could be; there appears to be no clear consensus to delete (although the argument is weighted that way) and I have no objection to the category being renamed "Gay Wikipedians" or "LGBT Wikipedians." Avruchtalk 15:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should go in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my argument is that it was created in jest.. fun.. humor.. something much lacking around the whole "LGBT cats" discussions.. they've become so heated over the months, to downright nasty, that it was just an "lmao" suggestion by a user that Gayass Wikipedians should be created.. so I did it. ALLSTARecho 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one merry prankster to another, let me just observe to you that when you have to say "it was a joke", your joke has already hit the ground with a wet splat. Comedians understand that a joke that plays well in one room is not necessarily going to play well everywhere. In any case, I'll accept that the category was a joke, and maybe even a good joke in limited contexts. Now that you've had your little joke, let it drop. Nothing kills a joke like beating on it too long, especially if it's already dead.
Frankly, my basis for assuming good faith was exactly the scenario you give: that someone in the LGBT community had created it. As a member of that community, I got the joke and would have laughed loudly if the joke were shared in the family, so to speak. But in some ways the intent doesn't matter. Jokes are all about context. You took a joke out of the context in which it was funny and planted it in a context in which it was not funny, like telling a surfing joke in North Dakota ... so it fell to earth with a thud. Brush yourself off, comedian, like you were just warming up, and move on to other material.  :) --7Kim (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument for a Strong Keep is that this category is pure WP:POINT
However, you'll notice a Catch 22 involved in this category and its predecessors Category:Queer Wikipedians and Category:LGBT Wikipedians. For some reason *these* categories are deleted while other categories based on self-selection are allowed.
Now, the argument goes, WP:OTHERSTUFF is no reason to keep a category.
But then look at the discussion for Cat:American Wikipedians where the category will most likely be kept due to WP:HARMLESS.
There's a double standard and it's time it got ironed out. It seems as though the sexuality categories have been / are singled out while other self-selection user criteria are not. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, however, there is a specific issue surrounding the adjectival intensifying particle "-ass". I have no objection to Category:Queer Wikipedians or Category:Gay Wikipedians so long as the word "queer" or "gay" gets a coherent definition and the cat has good inclusion criteria, but I would have the same argument against Category:Queerass Wikipedians that I have against Category:Gayass Wikipedians. How many people would describe themselves as "gayass", "queerass", "lesbianass", or "transass"? The presence of that particle "-ass" renders the label offensive and pejorative. I accept that there was ironic intent behind it, but the vast majority of those consulting and editing Wikipedia are not in on the joke and don't necessarily understand the ironic intent. --7Kim (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am gay and I like ass, so that makes me gayass, no? lol ALLSTARecho 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How very relevant. - ∅ (∅), 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks pointy to me. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Potentially inflammitory name (no pun intended) if nothing else. I probably would have speedied this category as vandalism if I didn't realize it had been created in good faith.VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire and optionally brimstone too in the name of common sense and decency - ∅ (∅), 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV much? ALLSTARecho 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV? Surely you're not claiming that LGBT people are exempt from the requirements of common sense and decency? We don't have Category:Nigger Wikipedians for black people, either, do we? And even if we did, being created by a black person would not make it any less offensive! - ∅ (∅), 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the people saying keep. "it's a joke" and "it was created to make a point" are reasons to delete things, not keep them. - Koweja (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a poor attempt at humor.DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonable use of humor to point out a badly handled situation, which actually does make it related to policy discussion, and Wikipedia. I'm straight myself, but am tempted to add the related userbox to my own userpage. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Satyr's argument that it is harmless and being held to a double standard (when I first recruited for WP:LGBT, Gay Wikipedians was my first port of call, so it was a useful category). But I would like to register my phenomenal annoyance that I can to add this category to my own page due to it not representing my own "assness". Biphobia is soooo gay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the imputation of a double standard for for LGBT issues: Looking over the rest of the referenced UCfD page, I see that a very large number of categories of the form "(blank) Wikipedians" were up for discussion at that time, on lines ranging from LGBT identity to philosophy. Transhumanist, Cynical, Structural Realist, Marxist, Feminist, Nudist, Objectivist, Demoscener, Depressive, and many other types of Wikipedians saw their categories up for discussion, and by reading the page, there were very, very few results to keep; nearly all such categories of this nature that survived (and there weren't many) survived on no consensus. I infer from this that the sexual-identity categories were not, as has been implied by some editors here, deleted out of a spirit of antipathy or double standard toward LGBT people, but because a wave of nominations of identity-based categories landed in a UCfD then populated heavily by editors inclined to delete identity-based categories in general. The general consensus in UCfD may be a strict (perhaps overly strict) interpretation of WP:NOT#SOCIAL, but I don't think that that principle is being selectively enforced against LGBT people. Anyone who follows UCfD will have noticed that there are often waves of certain kinds of nominations, and certain kinds of arguments seem to dominate for a couple of weeks and then fade. --7Kim (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addendum to this comment, I quote the admin who closed the debate on Category:LGBT Wikipedians, as food for thought:

    The result of the debate was delete. While those who count votes may point to the numbers here, I have closed this as delete based on strength of the arguments and precedent at the cited DRV. The majority of the persons in favor of keeping this category actually help the opposite cause by 1) making claims of bias against those favoring deletion, turning this into a social issue of identification rather than one of collaboration and 2) making depreciated arguments of WP:ILIKEIT in favor of social networking. After Midnight 0001 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

    I personally do not agree with the decision to delete these categories, but facts is facts and consensus is consensus and it is important to understand and deal with the very real arguments that were made rather than relying on the comfortable illusion that those who do not give you what you want are simply biased. There is probably a way to restore the LGBT usercats, but crying bias is the best possible way to ensure that they will never be restored. --7Kim (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what "rubbed the salt in the wound" regarding all these "gay" usercats was that they were all UCfD/slaughtered during National Coming Out Week, some of those cats having been in place for 2 years with no problems but all of a sudden, during a national observance of gay pride, thrown to the wolves for devour... ALLSTAR echo 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I share the feeling, but this discussion should be continued elsewhere. Arguments from feelings have very limited utility in UCfD. --7Kim (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another phenomenally flaming keep . . . although you should ignore anything I write because this is my last WP edit before I sign off on my user page and delete all but one of the messages on my talk page, asking that no further messages be left there. So don't bother reading this. And don't bother replying because I won't be here.
    • Why am I leaving WP? . . . A major reason is the fact that you're even having this discussion at all -- about a category for we LGBT people to define ourselves as such. Some of you speak here in a rational tone of voice and even feel aggrieved and saddened that LGBT's are getting emotional and accusing others of bias. But -- if you possibly can -- try to step back and get some perspective. Do you really imagine that it's okay for the majority to vote on -- or attempt to reach consensus on -- whether a minority that's persecuted in society should be allowed to identify themselves as such? Where exactly do you get your nerve?
    • Why is it relevant to WP collaboration to have a category for LGBT Wikipedians? . . . Because it's inherent in the nature of LGBT oppression in society that we're asked to hide. It's fundamental to the mechanism: the majority in society thinks it's okay to persecute, discriminate against, or even jail LGBTs because they're comfortable with the idea that we're a small advocacy fringe with an antisocial agenda. Meanwhile, the truth is that we're a relatively large minority (probably between 6 and 10%) that routinely goes about our business participating in and making contributions to society, just like everyone else. Except we're pressured to be invisible -- so our daily lives don't count like everyone else's -- and therefore it's okay to dismiss us. . . . And now, you at Wikipedia, by denying us a category, are explicitly requiring us to do the same -- and to cooperate in the very mechanism that oppresses us. You're perfectly happy to accept the contributions our expertise and work can make to ten thousand topics on WP, but you won't let us identify ourselves (even within the basic anonymity and collaborativeness of WP editing) as LGBT and so create even very limited recognition noticing that we're citizens here too. And how, exactly is that supposed to affect our morale? Are we supposed to feel happy in our work? Is it supposed to be "collaborative" when we LGBTs know that we're second-class, only here on condition that we don't break our pretense of "normality."
    • Why are we insisting now on the insulting, derogatory term, "gayass?" . . . The simple answer is that we tried nicely to get several polite synonyms recognized -- and you turned us down on all of them. Society already makes us feel like a bunch of "faggots," "dykes," and "gayasses," so our best hope in the face of the politely phrased, legalistic insult that WP has offered us is to turn around a less polite term for the same attitude and wear it as a badge of pride. Any questions?
    • Am I leaving WP solely because it won't recognize the contributions of LBGTs as such? . . . Well, I do think that would be a good reason by itself. Why should I work as a volunteer in a place where I'm unmentionable? . . . But, actually, I think that this "debate" is symptomatic of my larger disappointment with WP. The process and rules and policies have run away with it -- the vast majority of topics here are nearly unpopulated with editors, while most of the discussions I've happened on (including this one) are obsessively legalistic and lacking in perspective and common sense. This system allows editors with agendas to act arbitrarily while seeming to quote the rules. A good example is the very editor Avruchtalk who is responsible for nominating Category:Gayass Wikipedians for deletion. Coincidentally, he happens, as the result of a different discussion, to also be immediately responsible for my decision to leave.
    • Aren't I supposed to assume good faith? . . . Yes. That's precisely the problem. If I were to stay here, then assuming good faith would have to be a cornerstone. But, I just can't do that. A lot of you do have good faith. But too many of you, like Avruchtalk, have faith only in their own wishes, opinions, and dogma -- and are perfectly willing to game the system to get their way. I have too much evidence to the contrary to be able to make other people's good faith an automatic assumption -- and I refuse to work in that atmosphere. I have too many other non-WP projects where I can be constructive and effective.
    • Am I being insulting? . . . Perhaps. . . . But I don't think I created this situation. I came to WP with the best hope in the world of being a civic-minded member of the community and making a constructive contribution.
    • Will Avruchtalk -- or someone else -- unilaterally decide (as he did last night in a different discussion) that my comments here are too long and (according to his private interpretation) too off-topic, and therefore need to be deleted, archived, or moved to someplace safely irrelevant? . . . Very possibly.
    • William P. Coleman (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gayass Wikipedians Section Break[edit]
I strongly resent the many posts by Coleman around Wikipedia today that imply that I am biased, bigoted, anti-gay, homophobic or whatever else. I am simply not, and in fact I believe my personal opinions on the subject have no place here. I'm disappointed that no one has taken a moment to address the fact that Coleman has blamed the ills of gay Wikipedians on me, in any forum where he has expressed this opinion. My nomination of the Gayass Wikipedian nomination has nothing to do with what I think of people who are gay and everything to do with whether I think such a category or similar categories (whether relating to LGBT or otherwise) has a place in Wikipedia. And before you ask, no I haven't nominated other categories for deletion - I have the LGBT WikiProject page watchlisted, and happened to note the discussion there of the new category. Avruchtalk 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While, emotionally, I understand this editor's feelings, I want to point out that by arguing in this way he is playing directly into the hands of the attitude exemplified by After Dark's commentary quoted above. If we have such a powerful desire to retrieve categories like Category:Gay Wikipedians, this is 100% the wrong way to argue. (Or, perhaps, are we more interested in playing the martyr role? Victory is the last thing martyrs want.) One effective, but self-centered and shortsighted, way to do it is to study the arguments used to delete them and find a way to beat those arguments; an even better way, but much slower (and it benefits everybody, not just sexual minorities), is to address the real problem: the current consensus in UCfD on a distorted and hardline interpretation of, for example, WP:NOT#SOCIAL. (I suggest that everyone follow that link and read what's there, then compare what's there to how it keeps getting used here. There's where the real problem lies.) Consensus has been against us, but consensus can change, and with careful work that change can be directed. Like it or not, emotional arguments on this subject go nowhere in UCfD, precisely because we have burned them out. How many times are we going to try the same thing expecting a different result? Until the call is sounded to salt the categories because the endless arguing is just too disruptive? --7Kim (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as disruptive; restore the same-sex userboxes and categories. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The point of a category is for people to find things relating to the one topic. Why would anyone want to go around finding out who's gay and who's not? Of course, that userbox is fine but there's no need for a category.--Phoenix-wiki 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Predicate question: Why would anyone want to go around finding out who's homeschooled, a Mac user, or an objectivist? The assertion that user-group categories are "to find things related to the topic" is not at all supported by the commonly accepted usage of user groups. - Revolving Bugbear 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per William P. Coleman's lucid arguments. Jeffpw (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is a huge waste of time, and everyone should agree to let the issue go after it closes. While William P. Coleman's social commentary has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of user categories, it does suggest that we're better off in the long run renaming all user categories to "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on articles related to..." (except for language proficiency and any other obvious exceptions) to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. –Pomte 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not keep, but change the title to Gay Wikipedians if someone claims to be offended? Sf46 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vandal-magnet; potential privacy issues; profanity in title. DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DrKiernan. Seems like the kind of thing that would be used more to vandalize an opponent's userspace than something that homosexual users would actually want to post. Plus the usual arguments about non-collaborative or useful, yadda yadda... Equazcion •✗/C • 09:12, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete' "gayass" cannot be assimilated by the community it was created to insult. It's juvenile and intended to hurt and dismiss alternate viewpoints. JuJube (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the decision made at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification. Category is needlessly inflammatory. — Save_Us † 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everything Ned Scott said above. Also, how can this be offensive to the gay community when they themselves wish to keep this? We aren't here to tell others what to call themselves - that is a terrible judgemental habit. If you are going to oppose then at least do so using arguments that don't consist of "you can't call yourselves this". Maybe I'm just too Scandinavian and liberal to understand that attitude but to me it is far more offensive than the word "gayass". EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure all LGBT Wikipedians would happily liked to be called a gayass. Not being offensive to one person doesn't mean that another could be offended by it, and I know there are editors here who would identify was LGBT who would most certianly not like being included in that category. — Save_Us † 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But who are Wikipedia to tell those that the category is quite clearly intended for what to call themselves? It doesn't simply say "LGBT Wikipedians" on the category page. It's a little more specific than that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the category: This category contains Wikipedians who are phenomenally flaming gay, avowed homosexuals, decidedly trans, bi, or lesbian, genderfucked, intersex, or otherwise queer. That is pretty inclusive for this topic (i.e. "or otherwise queer"), and is hardly specific. What is wrong in placing themselves in Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues or looking through the 'Whatlinkshere' tool to see who is using the userbox as well? There are African-Americans who call themselves a nigga, but I'm sure not all African-Americans would really appriciate a categories exsistence if one was made for the term. "Gayass" isn't even common terminology for the most part and if it is used, it's used as a pejorative.The title of this userbox was intended as a joke more than likely, and not a very funny one as it turns out. Keeping this category is setting us up to return to the debate about other sexuality and gender related categories. In a nutshell, the point of user categories is group users interested in the same topics, which LGBT already has, and we need to use common sense about something titled "gayass". If someone want to call themselves that, I'm all fine for them to declare the same thing the category does, but the actual category itself is an absolute joke. — Save_Us † 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the Wikipedians who were affected by the previous deletion result cited as the rationale for this deletion debate would not mind giving up this category if their previous choice of user categories had not been deleted. They aren't asking for special treatment - they are asking for the same rights as any other group of Wikipedians. The name and existence of that or those user categories should not be censored or otherwise singled out. To consider the reaction against that sort of treatment a joke speaks for itself and needs no reply. Does that apply to religious groups as well? Should we tell everyone in Category:Christian Wikipedians and all the subcategories to create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity instead? The double standard applied here is obvious. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about equal treatment, it's about blatant WP:POINT violations caused by a joke. The example between Christian Wikipedians and this is hardly a fair or equal one. According to the article on it, Christianity and the term Christian have been around since the 1st century, meanwhile "Gayass" is not a term at all. The term "gayass" was coined yesterday as a term of describing someone as a avowed homosexual unless someone can prove otherwise. If your argument was "if someone created a new term that was offensive for a religious group, would you have it deleted?" (as opposed to a sexual preference), yes, I would have it deleted. I don't want it censored out nor am I singling it out, and I would say the same thing for any other category like this one. The term gayass is not a term at all, used as a joke and is potentially offensive to people who are LGBT. How you can compare the word gayass to Christian is appauling. — Save_Us † 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to chime in here -- the term "gayass" wasn't exactly coined yesterday. I've heard it before (and I'm not even gay). I'm for this being deleted, mind you, but as far as it being offensive, that's probably something the gayass people should be deciding, not others :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:40, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I was being unclear then for which I do apologize. The comparison I wish to make is between asking LGBT editors to restrict themselves to Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues and asking those in the subcategories of Category:Christian Wikipedians to restrict themselves to a category such as Category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity. When the LGBT editors were singled out as they were in the deletion of the various subcategories they aren't getting equal treatment and this is what upsets me. Yes, they created this to make a point but they did so because they weren't being treated fairly and this needs to be properly adressed. Simply dismissing it as inflammatory as is being done in some arguments here is just another slap in their face. No wonder they are upset. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Equazcion, yes, I have heard the term before as well, but mostly used as a pejorative and not a means of self-identification in sexuality.
EconomicsGuy, all I can furthur say is that if they were treated unfairly, then process to restore something that they wanted or needed can be done in order to reverse the affects of it. Creating things out of spite of a decision (and making potentially inflammatory to boot) isn't the way to make their argument stronger. If they want to discuss and create a user category for LGBT users, then by all means, let them discuss that and bring up the past CFD and let them create a decent category. But creating this much drama over this kind of category, and the way it was created, is almost reason enough to delete. If they wanted to make a legitimate claim about it and create a legitimate category, I see no problem. — Save_Us † 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, except that process has been tried. I agree with the comment made on DRV that a RFC may be the proper approach to solving this. As for the two of us we'll just have to agree to disagree since our fundamental views on these things are clearly too far apart for any meaningful debate to take place. Cultural and political differences I guess. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict - Sorry)*Strong keep or Move to Queer What is the logic for keeping usercats like "Christian" or "African American" or "Muslim"? Other than objections to "ass" (and might I point out WP:Censor and that it's a usercat for those users who don't have an issue with the presence of "ass"), maybe we could stop being so puritanically uptight on other people's behalf. Gayass was not intended to be insulting, I'm a "gayass" user - it's called a sense of humor. This isn't about social networking but about inclusiveness and visibility in attempt to address systemic bias and bigotry. It has been suggested, a bit of a sop, but better than nothing, that users sign up at WP:LGBT. OK, why is this acceptable and productive, but not a cat? Probably because it would then be safely hidden away so that other users need not be troubled or offended (let's not forget a reduced risk of contaminating our younger users). The problem with this is that it can take a while for a new user to get into the backdrop of Portals and Projects, and that while is often plenty of time for a new user to feel like s/he has no voice, feel disenchanted and leave. Oh yeah, and because (it needs repeating) WP does not censor.

Let's reverse the situation - WP is a queer-friendly project (gasp!) - there are usercats for "Gay", "Lesbian", "Drag Queen", "Drag King", "Power bottom", "Users who prefer water based lubricants", "Bear" and "Felcher", as well as "Butch" and "Femme", but you are a hetero Christian. Because you have a sense of humor and admire the project's goals, you suggest a Christian usercat to help foster a sense of community that you can identify with in order to learn from and collaborate with other like minded editors. But the very community you want to a be part of responds by saying "Oh, Christianity, that cannibalistic, necrophiliac cult?" or "How inflammatory." or "You just want to get a date." or "Why no, you can't self-identify because of privacy issues" WTF? It's called self-identification.

This is not a false category, not a joke, not a not-based category ;P, not obscure, not frivolous, not a name that includes an insult to others (OK, points for not taking cheap shot here), not of purely local interest, not associated with illegal activities. But we do have usercats relating to location, religion, hardware - because whether or not you use a Dell is so desperately relevant to collaboration, "BASC Divers" - a little underwater editing anyone?, "Wikipedians interested in alchemy" - helloooo, and last but not least, "Wikipedians open to trout slapping". I rest my case. Phyesalis (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Administrative note: Avruch closed this as withdrawn, however I made the decision to revert that based on that it generally disallowed to withdraw nominations after an argument to delete has been presented, and I feel there would be no point as this would be renominated immediately anyway. VegaDark (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!vote: Is this category a blatant violation of WP:POINT? Yes, obviously. However, take a moment to read WP:POINT -- it is meant to prevent disruption. I see this category as a fraction as disruptive as the deletion of the previous sexuality identification categories. It seems to me that not having a category for LGBTQ/etc Wikipedians to identify when so many other (many very arbitrary) groups do hurts the community of Wikipedia far more than having one would. While the cries of bias may be unjustified, they are understandable to me, especially given the fact that it is a sad fact of our culture that discrimination against people who identify themselves as or are judged by others to be LGBTQ is largely condoned in modern society. In light of all the other categories brought up above, the argument that user cats should serve the interests of collaboration holds, in my opinion, absolutely no weight. Indeed, having categories where people may self-identify in a group typically considered a "minority" may well serve a very useful purpose per WP:CSB. Should we have a "Category:Gayass Wikipedians"? Of course not, it is clearly disruptive. But should we have a "Category:LGBTQ Wikipedians"? I can't think of a single reason why not. - Revolving Bugbear 18:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not because it's gay (so am I), not because it's offensive (so am I), but because it's an adolescent joke that serves no productive purpose to the WP project, and is clearly being supported solely to make some kind of WP:POINT. Get A Life, girlfriends. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a small step to countering the systemic homophobia on Wikipedia evidenced (in part) by the deletion of other LGBT usercats while other self-identity usercats are left untouched. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because some LGBT Wikipedians appreciate "reclaimed insults" doesn't mean all of them do, just as I'm sure Category:Jive-ass Nigga Wikipedians wouldn't go over too well with our African-American editors. krimpet✽ 03:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also disappointed in the accusations and downright name-calling some users have resorted to instead of policy-based arguments. If you want the LGBT user categories undeleted, there are systems in place -- don't create a pointy new category, and when it gets nominated for deletion, ask that it be changed into the previously deleted categories. That's the very essence of being disruptive — wasting people's time with frivolous discussions about "gayass" categories when the real discussion you want to have is elsewhere, and one fair slight more serious. --Haemo (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Technically this category should be speedy deleted as a substantially similar recreation of Category:Gay Wikipedians. If consensus has changed about this category, it should be brought to deletion review, not here. Would a result of keep or no consensus (defaulting in keep) not go against policy? I think it would undermine the DRV process. I was half tempted to close this when I realized that, but at this point in the debate it would probably be more disruptive than it's worth. Just something for whoever closes this to keep in mind. VegaDark (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you're wrong about that technicality. Gayass Wikipedians isn't remotely close to Gay Wikipedians except in partial name. Check the content of both of them. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a combination category for all the LBGT categories that were deleted and endorsed at DRV, and can be speedied as substantial recreation as such IMO. I think if "X Wikipedians" and "Y Wikipedians" are individually deleted, that makes "X and Y Wikipedians" speedy deletable. To have to go through an entire new nom would be gaming the system (which, coincidentally, the creation of this category successfully did). VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you believed it was a recreation of Category:Gay Wikipedians. How can it then be a combination of all the deleted categories at the same time? That is logically incoherent. Also, there is no speedy criteria that says that putting something together in a larger context makes it speedy deletable. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it logically incoherent to believe that it is a recreation of the content of several categories? The speedy criteria says " A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." That reasoning fits with this category. The reasons the LBGT categories were deleted was because the need to categorize people by sexual preference was deemed unnecessary. The creation of this category does not address the reasons for why those categories were deleted. I think most admins would agree, and I have already talked to one who agreed it is speedyable. I would have had no hesitation to speedy delete this as such if I had realized this earlier, but as I said at this point in the debate that could be counterproductive. I wouldn't fault someone who did, however, and I'd imagine such a deletion would be endorsed at DRV. VegaDark (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment here again but the fact that you are trying to pull rank on me in a content issue (or generally for that matter) makes it worth to comment one last time. You know, the sad fact here is that this would never have been an issue if these categories hadn't been singled out and deleted. And what is that I see above? An admin agreeing with me as well? And he isn't the only one. There are over 1000 active admins - whether one or even a small group agrees with you means nothing at all. Fact is you still haven't realized why this is an issue - and the answer to that one isn't in letter by letter reading of a speedy criteria. It actually requires that you take the time to understand those affected by this. The lack of will and quite possibly ability to do so by several people in this debate says more than I really wanted to know about my fellow Wikipedians. I'm done with this debate now. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that you are making arguments that would be better severed on deletion review, not here. You are essentially arguing WP:IAR be implemented so you can have your category back. I personally don't think I even participated in the original debate resulting in the deletion of the LBGT categories, but I can see both the pros and cons of keeping such categories. Hence, I think if it is to be restored (which I am fine with if consensus wishes such) it should be through the proper channels (DRV) and not here. The issue as to "why" this is an issue should be discussed there. VegaDark (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRV, in my experience, will only look very narrowly at the actual process of a previous deletion. It will not examine whether the deletion was actually right or wrong, just if it was done according to process. One of the LGBT usercats has been llisted at DRV, and the very first comment was on the lines of "this isn't the right place to discuss this". Wikipedia's sprawling bureaucracy, unworkable requirement for "consensus" (which is never defined) for every single change, and the ability of a very few editors to prevent change because of this, are stultifying. DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way something is treated on DRV can go two ways - Complaining about the deletion process (as the most recent nomination does) or determining if consensus has changed. I think there would be a much higher success of overturning by saying "Deletion of these categories followed process and consensus at the time. But, recently, it appears as if consensus may have changed about these types of categories. I am bringing this here to determine if it has in fact changed, in which case we can bring these categories back" (followed by reasons to bring them back). Deletion review is the proper place to discuss the bringing back of something as well as the deletion process, so such a discussion there would be acceptable. I think that would get a much more positive response than "The DRV was closed improperly! Overturn!". VegaDark (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Category is inflammatory and asking for abuse. — DarkFalls talk 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is Category:Scientologist Wikipedians and let's not forget Category:Intelligent Design Wikipedians. The point is for something to be abused someone must be abusing it. Are you now saying that they are asking for it? EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about vandalism. I think many would find being called "gayass" more insulting than being called a scientologist. Also, I know many people who identify themselves as homosexual being insulted with this "humorous" category. It's simply inflammatory and not funny. — DarkFalls talk 07:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they don't want to be known as a Gayass Wikipedian, then what should they not do? They should not put the userbox or category on their userpage. Problem solved. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think thats the point, "This category contains Wikipedians who are phenomenally flaming gay, avowed homosexuals, decidedly trans, bi, or lesbian, genderfucked, intersex, or otherwise queer" that covers a lot of people who are LGBT who would not liked to be called a pejorative like gayass. — Save_Us † 11:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Now, it explicitly states that those who choose to include themselves in the category "proudly proclaim that they are Gayass Wikipedians". Photouploaded (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question to everyone who cried homophobia: Do we have heterosexual sexuality categories? Should we have them? If we don't, does that mean we're all heterophobes? - ∅ (∅), 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, yes, yes. Next? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Gayass Wikipedians Section Break[edit]

And just one more reason why this cat should stay. From the recently closed Category:American Wikipedians discussion: no consensus , default to keep. Neither side had particularly strong arguments, so "mostly harmless" won out in a sense. I don't see American Wikipedians any more useful than this one so if nothing else, Gayass Wikipedians is mostly harmless and should remain. Precendent set. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, until we delete the entire contents of Category:Wikipedians, since the many of the arguments for deletion here could be applied to a vast number of the categories there. Altairisfartalk 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me of another category that contains a explict pejorative like gayass, please. — Save_Us † 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it doesn't express contempt or disapproval and is not on the same level as the racial slurs that have been written here. It does seem to be controversial however and I'm sure that it will be deleted just as Category:LGBT Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, Category:Transsexual Wikipedians , and Category:Lesbian Wikipedians were, for reasons that had nothing to do with them being "explicit pejoratives." Altairisfartalk 04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though some black people call each other "niggers" in a kind manner we still don't allow it on Wikipedia because the term is very offensive to many and is primarily a pejorative term. The same goes with "gayass", even though many use it self referentially, it is still generally offensive. (1 == 2)Until 04:00, 23 January 2008 (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 in x prefecture[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 discussion was Upmerge all to Category:Wikipedians in Japan. Every respondent since the debate was relisted has concurred. Previous respondents were invited to comment, and by their silence one can only assume they also concur or have no opinion, since they have edited Wikipedia since being informed. Hiding T 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedians in x prefecture for the category list. Note that it's just that section, the other sections are part of the in/of/from nomination directly below.
Should it be Wikipedians in the x prefecture? - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure, hence the nomination for separate discussion. - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created these categories so I'll answer: No, it shouldn't be in the x prefecture. There's no logical reason behind it, but the fact is that English speakers living in Japan always say (for example) "I live in x prefecture", not "I live in the x prefecture", so this same wording should apply to the category names. Sorry if there's any confusion. Manmaru (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, 'the' is normally not used here. A 'google test' gives 70k hits for 'in Aichi prefecture' versus 5k hits for 'in the Aichi prefecture' (I chose a random prefecture for testing). Arthena(talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Manmaru and Arthena that "the" is unconventional. One would not write "in the Kansas state." If any change should be made, it would be to capitalize "prefecture" because, paired with the name, it's a proper name. All articles on prefectures follow the form "X Prefecture." But these are Wikipedia internal categories and perhaps that's not necessary. Fg2 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the correct style in naming, they can be speedily renamed to capitals. As for "the", One might say: the midwestern states; or the South; or the city-state of Athens; or even The Roman Empire. That said, it's New York state, not "the" New York state. Though one might say "the" New York State legislature, or the Cook county seat. Hence my question in the nomination : ) - jc37 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When people say "the New York State legislature," "the" is referring to "legislature." "New York State" just describes which legislature. Proper ways to talk about prefectures are to say, for example, "Gifu Prefecture" or "the prefecture of Gifu" (though the latter is much more formal). Douggers (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the "the" in that case "modifies" the word legislature. Note that if "the prefecture of Gifu" is correct, so then is "the Gifu prefecture" (Let's hear it for the Genitive case : ) - That said, it seems that common usage appears to not necessarily be correct grammatically, which is not all that uncommon. And since our guidelines suggest "common usage", I have no problem deferring to what you're saying, in this case, presuming it turns out to be true (as it seems to be thus far). - jc37 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of proper capitalization, "the Gifu prefecture" is not a correct because "Gifu Prefecture" is a proper known. As such, it is just one noun and not an example of the genitive form. Douggers (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of the above aside, I'm noticing that these are rather underpopulated (most are populated by a single user who claims on their user page to be living in Tokyo, though they have the userboxes for every prefecture on their userpage (which is categorising them in every one of these). So setting that aside for a moment, most of these are empty or have a single member. Perhaps the categories should just be UpMerged to those from/in Japan. (If so, I'll renominate.) - jc37 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "the" should not be added, because it makes the phrase really awkward and unnatural. (See my above comment.) Douggers (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the others that "the" should not be included. Given how underpopulated the categories are, I'd be fine upmerging them until such time as there are enough to split them out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians in Japan, with no prejudice for recreation in the future, per Nihonjoe's comments above. - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'd like to see more discussion of the proposed upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Japan and whether we can generate a consensus on that point. Hiding T 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sounds ok to me (but no vote). Fg2 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per above. How many people should be in a location category before it is deemed enough to keep, though? There is at least 1 category with 3 users in it last time I checked, should that be enough to keep? VegaDark (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per above. --Kbdank71 18:49, 23 January 2008 (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.

January 15[edit]

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits[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 discussion was keep although I don't particularly see the benefit of having both the WP space page and a category. Perhaps an MfD or something along those lines is in order in the future to discuss merging the two. VegaDark (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maybe I lack the fantasy, but I don't see the point. Under what circumstances might this category ever be a useful instrument to coordinate collaboration? Further, it was created pointing to WP:EMDE for further explanation. That page has a list signed by many more users than have added themselves to the category. User:Dorftrottel 16:48, January 15, 2008

  • Comment - Perhaps a better way to nominate this would be to nominate both that page and this cat for MfD. MfD has been used in the past as a place for "package noms" (nominations of items from more than one Wikispace - category and Wikipedia spaces, in this case). That way both can be discussed at the same time. - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking about an MfD, but hesitated as I wasn't sure whether WP:EMDE couldn't work as some mixed wikiproject/essay. No objection on a combined MfD though if there are no objections from others. User:Dorftrottel 01:25, January 16, 2008
      • OTOH, maybe proceeding step-by-step is more efficient. Imo, the category is more apparent in its encyclopedic uselessness than the Wikispace page, which could be appropriately labelled as an essay, since its meatpuppetry-affirming stance does certainly not reflect community consensus. User:Dorftrottel 14:21, January 17, 2008
  • Note that the main list was nominated for deletion, but was kept. --Iamunknown 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thanks for the note (hadn't thought of checking). One particularly interesting suggestion in the debate was to make a new page that combines Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and WP:EMDE. I don't like either of the pages or categories, and I doubt there's too much purely encyclopedic intention behind such things, but maybe merging them could create something new and bigger than the pieces? User:Dorftrottel 07:37, January 16, 2008
  • Keep Category page seems to explain it, and seems like a valid tool in light of those reasons. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for collaboration. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software[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 discussion was Delete. Hiding T 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category serves no collaborative purpose and does not (by name, at least) imply interest in collaborative efforts to improve our coverage of related topics. User:Dorftrottel 16:36, January 15, 2008

  • Delete - "Support/Oppose issue" category. (Such categories have been deemed in the past to be potentially divisive.) - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't see how this helps wiki collaboration; more like a divisive sneer at open-sourcers. David Fuchs (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc. --Kbdank71 18:49, 23 January 2008 (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 cancer survivors[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 discussion was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer, resulting in delete. If Consensus has changed, this should be taken to deletion review to determine that. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The category has only one member, User:Ted-m, whom I will notify momentarily of this discussion. As it doesn't imply any interest in collaborative efforts, I would argue deletion rather than renaming it and making it a subcat of Category:Wikipedians interested in medicine. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

  • Keep Category is new, will probably increase as more people learn about it. Having cancer can be quite an ordeal. Surviving cancer is a part of people's identity and worthy of inlusion as a category in my opinion. --Ted-m (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2008 (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:WikiCredit[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 discussion was delete - nothing to move other than the text "WikiCredit pages" which can easily be recreated in the userspace without a move if the author so wishes. VegaDark (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiCredit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created and populated by a single user, User:GoldenPhoenix, whom I will notify momentarily of this discussion. Not to hurt anyone's feelings, but this seems like patent nonsense to me. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

  • Delete, though the aim seems to be to improve the project, a pretend currency does not appear to be an effective means to this end. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not seem like a good idea, but if the category is going to be deleted, the main page for this scheme at Wikipedia:WikiCredit should be put up for deletion also. --Bduke (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This proposed system doesn't need a category yet. Let's see if the Wikipedia page survives AfD (or if it's even nominated), and the category can always be recreated if it's found to be necessary at a later time. - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - I've already 'took' the rest of WikiCredit to my user page, and all you will have to do is to move the category to User:GoldenPhoenix/Category:WikiCredit where it will undergo some nice beta testing until it will be accepted. And by the way, the equation is a joke, not nonsense! (although it may be!) GoldenPhoenix 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was moved to that target, it would no longer function as a category, but moving it to userspace is fine with me if that meets your needs. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The cat is now empty and looks like an uncontroversial CSD-G6. User:Dorftrottel 13:56, January 17, 2008
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:Fantastic Wikipedia editors[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 discussion was Delete All except Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes and Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies Nakon 05:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all its subcategories.

In my humble opinion, none of these serve any collaborative purpose. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

The subcategories that are also included are;

  • Comment - Well, where would we be without fantastic editors? I think all the subcats need to be examined first. Unless we see no merit at all in any of the included self-characterizations by editing style (Would WikiGnomes actually show up at such discussions here?), we should maybe also have a parent category, but then certainly rename it. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with the above. The sub categories need to be tagged for CfD discussion and they should all be separately listed here. Let us make sure everyone has a chance to know what is going on. --Bduke (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All subcategories tagged for deletion and listed above. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Parent Category It's redundant to Category:Wikipedia fauna (with a highly debatable name), which is what those should all be subcats of. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Category:Wikipedia fauna is a category which groups Wikipedia-space pages, not Wikipedians. So the two are not redundant. (And "Fantastic" is the correct usage when referring to things which are Fantasy, they are "fantastic".) - jc37 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I can't believe you've actually listed all those cats. Sure nom the parent cat as it is redundant to Category:Wikipedia fauna per EVula. If this was up at CfD more people would know what is going on. Most "user" cats have a fun element to them and nominating these well established cats (that are populated via their userboxes) will cause distress to some in my opinion. Very few editors would know what is going on here unless they visit the cat pages and see the notice. Not many would have this page on watch and most of the action is over at CfD. Sting_au Talk 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personally, some of these could possibly go (ZenMasters in particular - it was apparently only created to duplicate WikiFairies for those who might not wish to be called fairies). However, some, such as WikiGnome, are terms older than Wikipedia, internet memes, which directly describe types of contribution. Because of this disparity of type, I'd like to respectfully request that this group nomination be broken up into individual nominations. - jc37 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Collecting them under "Fantastic Editors" is probably overstating it, but these are all legitimate classifications of editor that do indeed serve a collaborative purpose. Of all self-identifying user categories, these are among the most deserving of existence, as they actually pertain to editing — as opposed to even Category:Wikipedians in the United States. — TAnthonyTalk 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - No encyclopedic purpose to specifically seek out users in these categories that I can come up with. Give me an example of an encyclopedia-furthering use of these categories and I might be persuaded otherwise, but until then I really can't think of an editor going "Oh hey! I need x done! Time to go to the WikiOgres category to look for someone to help with it!" Since this will most likely end as a no consensus as is, however, I support separating this in to individual noms. VegaDark (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I myself have actually used one of these when inviting people to participate in Wikipedia:Gnome Week. That project actually met a number of goals, so there is most definitely collaborative use (not just potential, actual use) of at least one of these categories. I can't speak firsthand of the others, but I should suppose that they could all be used similarly. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All - These as a group are long-established. WP:Editors matter should apply here too. Why are we wasting time with something as benign as these? As far as "building an encyclopedia", these templates and categories can lend understanding to one's edits. As a WikiDragon (mostly), many times my edits of a bold nature can be easily understood as having come from a WikiDragon. Yeah, it's thin, but does it hurt anything? No. Does it help? Perhaps. Does it make Wikipedia more fun? Yes. (Making the internet not suck.) Keep, Keep, Keep. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's to stop me from creating a category for Wikipedians who edit every third day of the month? I'll call it Category:Wikipixies. In short, there is no defining criteria of what type of info these can contain that will "lend understanding to their edits". I see no more need to know who edits every 3rd day of the month than I see the need to know whose edits "May tend to leave trivialities such as correcting grammar, adding irrelevant internal links" (Dragon), "who works behind the scenes at Wikipedia" (Elf), "who beautifies Wikipedia by organizing messy articles, improving style, or adding color and graphics" (Fairy), "who makes useful incremental edits without clamouring for attention" (Gnomes), "Who goes for long stretches making few or no edits, but for short periods of time makes large edits, rewrites, and even new articles in brief spats of Wikiholism" (Ogre), or "who beautify or enhance Wikipedia by organizing messy articles, improving style, or adding color and graphics" (ZenMaster). You can create an infinite number of these categories, each with their own subjectively chosen criteria as to what it takes to qualify to be in the category. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt Going strictly by numbers, this currently looks like a no consensus closure. However, none of the arguments to keep any of the subcategories, and particularly not the parent cat, have so far convinced me. I would logically appreciate a thorough look at the validity and depth of the presented arguments, which largely speaks for deletion or at least extensive reworking/renaming of the categories to make their usefulness more apparent and help prevent a merely self-identifying function. Issues like these appear to call for a careful top-down approach regarding education about the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and also for potentially controversial decisions for the sake of preserving Wikipedia's status as a purely encyclopedic project. In a similar vein, I'm thinking about putting e.g. Category:Wikipedians by skill and esp. Category:Wikipedian autograph pages up for discussion as well. People against deletion/restructuring of such categories may outnumber those who are in it for maintaining encyclopedic ends, but I'm afraid that if numbers are given too much weight, like it frequently happens at AfD/MfD despite all solemn assertions regarding consensus, less apparent cases of non-productivity, non-collaboration oriented user categories may stick and set a bad precedent for others to come. That's just one meta-reason I see for deleting this category and the subcategories, in addition to VegaDark's powerful argumentation. In my own personal opinion, a fantasy-approach is not any better than the frequently-seen, horribly childish paramilitary approach (see e.g. WP:CVU etcpp). User:Dorftrottel 14:12, January 17, 2008
  • Comment - Well, since it's thus far not been split, here's my comments at least:
  • Also, if (and only if) all but WikiGnomes and WikiFairies are deleted, then recat those two to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, and then delete the then empty Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors. If all or most of the above are kept, then the parent cat should also be kept. - jc37 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jc37. FWIW, I agree with Jc37's assessment. User:Dorftrottel 22:28, January 17, 2008
  • Concur, I too agree with Jc37. I'd also like to repeat, as I noted above, that Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes HAS been used for collaboration (not just could be, but has been), and likely will be used again in the future. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jc37. I think his analysis is spot on. To address another point, I do not believe that those who try to develop a sense of community among wikipedians, among whom I include the people who created these categories, are not "in it for maintaining encyclopedic ends". We need community to get volunteers to work on the encyclopedia. We need to strike a balance. It is not "writing the encyclopedia" or "developing a community". We need both, so we delete stuff that really gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, or has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. --Bduke (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the orignins of the name "Fantastic Wikipedia editors", but given the interpretations of the term, may it be prudent to rename to Category:Fantastical Wikipedia editors if it is kept? It perhaps better conveys what is meant. Hiding T 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all These are pertinent to the operation of WP, and a useful way of self-characterising working styles here. It's helpful to see the names all together. DGG (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per arguments that show these have been used for collaboration, and for a lack of reason to delete them. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that's only been claimed for WikiGnome, above. - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jc37 except keep WikiDragons. A category of self-described "better-than-thou" editors is probably a good idea so we know who they are, though I disagree with this assessment, and they can be called upon to improve specific articles after checking their contribs. –Pomte 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per Vegadark, I can't see the point to any of these. If wikignome has been used for collaboration, then weak delete for that one. I still don't see the point, and there are many other better ways to collaborate than this. --Kbdank71 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Poorly defined POV-ridden and clique/cabal-generating categorization. `'Míkka>t 20:27, 22 January 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

January 13[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like the Wolf[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 discussion was Speedy delete per user request. I actually took the trouble to ask the creator what he intended and he concurs with most respondents here. Hiding T 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like the Wolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete, not helpful for the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Liking a particular animal isn't helpful to categorize users by. Encourage creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in Wolves for those interested in collaborating. VegaDark (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in wolves. I think, in this case, that this was the intention. - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per VegaDark and encourage the independent creation of the interest category. The wolf is my favourite animal, but I've no interest in articles about wolves. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was referring to the intent of the single member. But due to technical reasons, renaming or deletion/recreation is essentially the same thing, so obviously either result is fine with me. - jc37 23:43, 17 January 2008 (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 Indiana Jones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in Indiana Jones. SkierRMH (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Indiana Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete, not helpful for the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Category:Indiana Jones, it looks like there is a lot that users could collaborate on. However, "Liking" something does not necessarly imply interest in collaborating on it. I still think there should be a group nom, but for now delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Indiana Jones (I'm willing to risk that the lone user in the category is interested in it). VegaDark (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they did create categories like Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, and others. Why not Indiana Jones? Indiana Jones is one of most favorite movies including a new movie coming. I disagree with Carlossuarez46 because he missed what is the reason/point I do not think he did see other categories before why not delete Star Trek? James Bond under Wikipedia project? Star Wars? and Writing?. VegaDark may be right about renaming but Indiana Jones fourth movie is coming. Indiana Jones world has grown as they make new toys from old movies, Disney World still have Indiana Jones ride, fourth movie coming soon, and DVDs of movies and Young Indiana Jones episodes so "liked" is a past tense. I think "like" is more common sense. There are million fans of us including Wikipedians who loves Indiana Jones. You know Harrison Ford was Han Solo in Star Wars as well. It is not a delete, it is worth tribute. Cculber007 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - similar to Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond, and other such sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians interested in film and Category:Wikipedians interested in television. - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As said by Jc37. interested in categories are probably some of the more important ones. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh...This isn't an "interested in" cat. It is a "Who like" cat. I'd fully support keeping if this were named Category:Wikipedians interested in Indiana Jones (as the naming convention is for many of the subcategories in the category mentioned above). VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Category:Wikipedians interested in film and Category:Wikipedians interested in television seem to have both conventions. While I wouldn't oppose a group nom to standardise the membership, I don't see a reason to single this one out for a rename atm. - jc37 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention that the television cat doesn't use the "interested in" convention at all. And since Indiana Jones is both a television topic and a film topic, we should probably use the most common denominator between the two. In this case, "who like". - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Indiana Jones. bd2412 T 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that loves Paris Hilton[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 discussion was delete as offensive to Nicole Ritchie. krimpet✽ 06:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that loves Paris Hilton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does not help to categorize Wikipedians by individual as per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual. Additionally it uses improper grammar. VegaDark (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sting_au Talk 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what I said before. Marlith T/C 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why should we care anyway? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Er, and we should care why? Loving Paris Hilton doesn't seem like something that's relevant to an encyclopedia. I could see Wikipedians that love Star Trek or Wikipedians that love The Internet, but those categories would span more than one or two articles. Oh, and per nom as well. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is hot, but I think it'd make Nicole Richie feel bad about herself. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 06:51, 17 January 2008 (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.


January 11[edit]

Category:Wikipedia users with the ability to rollback[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 discussion was Speedy deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G7. Acalamari 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia users with the ability to rollback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. This category isn't useful to the project. Rollback is, in of itself, nothing more than a quicker way of doing something anyone else can do. There's no particular reason any other Wikipedian needs to find another with rollback, save factionalism. Justin chat 03:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to help avoid possible misconceptions about rollback. I might reconsider if someone can think of a reason why we would need this since we have Special:Listusers/rollbacker. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - the list covers it. Sting_au Talk 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary since we have Special:Listusers/rollbacker. —Ashley Y 08:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ashley, and the fact this implies a caste of users with a status - which is such an unbelievably bad idea.--Doc g - ask me for rollback 11:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is no reason whatsoever to keep this category, and there are many, many reasons to delete it, per above. Say what you will about non-admin rollback, we all agree that users who have such access have no special status over those who don't -- and anything that implies such status must be nipped in the bud ASAP. szyslak 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, G7 - I didn't think it was a good idea when I created it. Will (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (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 ar-lb[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 discussion was Rename to Category:User apc along with sub-cat Category:User ar-lb-N being renamed to Category:User apc-N. Although this was not tagged, I'm going to invoke WP:IAR. Hiding T 10:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User ar-lb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:User apc, to match ISO 639-3 code for Lebanese Arabic. -- Prove It (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, which would naturally mean its lone subcategory would need to be renamed as well. VegaDark (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (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:Cuyler91093/False secret page[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as empty for at least 4 days,. If it gets recreated and populated bring it back here. VegaDark (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuyler91093/False secret page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, there aren't any secret pages, and we don't need to keep track of who may or may not have found them. -- Prove It (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2008 (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.

January 9[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who like 30 Rock[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 discussion was No consensus. The debate hinges on the usefulness to the community and its stated goals of this category. Whilst a case is made for deletion, there is also a case that the many similar categories rebuts the point, and that a wider consensus would be needed on the utility of all such categories. Either they all are of use or none are is the point made in rebuttal. I have no idea what per myspace means. Hiding T 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like 30 Rock

Liking a particular show isn't useful to the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I agree, but I think this should be done in a group nom. It makes no sense to delete one lone one out of the entire lot in the same category with the same "who like" naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per myspace. Marlith T/C 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete imperceptible encyclopedic value. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - similar to the several sub-cats of Category:Wikipedians interested in television. - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (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:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping‎[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 discussion was Keep. The debate below indicates that most respondents believe humour can aid community collaboration. Whilst there is a consensus that the category could be better named, there is no consensus within the debate on a better name. I suggest a relisting to determine a better name is sought by interested participants. However, there is a good point made about the origins of the category which all may care to bear in mind for the future. Hiding T 10:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping‎

See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/December_2007#Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_trout_slapping and no real reason why this is useful to the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before we get bogged down in this again, could someone please explain what happened after the first CfD was closed as delete on 16 December. How did it come back on December 24? The edit summary is unclear. --Bduke (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy DRV, which was so speedily closed that the closer (me) wasn't even allowed to comment a few hours later. Several editors (most admins) suggested that I open a DRV on the DRV, but I haven't gotten around to it. - jc37 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That DRV was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 20. It was closed under 5 days on 26 December. --Bduke (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My great apologies, I was thinking of the other discussion I closed that day: Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall. And I should clarify that I've pretty much decided to not bother with the second DRV of that cat, for various reasons. - jc37 09:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category does not help Wikipedia in any way I can see. VegaDark (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason admins should have all the fun, but it should be called Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Encourages editors not to take themselves too seriously, which can only benefit Wikipedia. But Move to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. —Ashley Y 09:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After thinking about this, it seems to me that this should be a potentially "all-inclusive" category. If no consensus to delete, Rename to Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking. - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, as above. As an aside, I strongly suggest that UCFD regulars notify editors included in categories up for deletion discussion. Yes, I know that it is not required, but it would do well, in my opinion, towards increasing a feeling that the consensus arrived at during a UCFD discussion was actually legitimate. In that vein, I have left a neutral note for Brewcrewer and Harland1, pointing them to this discussion. --Iamunknown 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hasn't this been done before? Please, stop with the useless deletion nominations. Friday (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that the term is "whacking" not "slapping", per WP:TROUT : ) - jc37 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Why must people be so serious? Seriousness leads to an increased chance of dieing at some point in your life. On a more relevant note, there is a reason to keep it, and that is precedent. WP:HUMOR is a category full of wikipedia humor. None of it "contributes to the encyclopedia." Directly. Ah, but all of this does. Because it is humor, it relieves stress and tension, reduces excessive seriousness (while one must be serious to write an encyclopedia, one should still remain good-natured, pleasant, et cetera), thus, in my opinion, lowering the amount of bad feelings. If we eliminate the humor, many quality editors would leave from the stuffiness. AS has been shown above, the similar category with this style was kept under consensus. In fact, humor pages are frequently subject to MfD's, and most times are kept (unless poorly written, or conflicting with policies and guidelines). unless this category is disruptive, I say keep. I might even add my own name!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per vox rationis :) Harland1 (t/c) 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Sting_au Talk 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ashley Y and Vox Rationis, but rename to Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking, per WP:TROUT. - ∅ (∅), 09:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I simply see no harm in it. If it adds a bit of humour that's a good thing. Possibly Whack everyone in it with a trout, just for good measure too, and to keep them alert. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm rather indifferent on this one, but would like to point out that the origin of this category in the recent admin recall debate (I guess the sophisticated American word is controversy) speaks against it, as it was obviously created as something of a WP:POINT during that debate controversy debacle drama . User:Dorftrottel 05:35, January 18, 2008
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 interest[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy close - WP:POINT nomination. Clearly shown in the link below. - jc37 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by interest

See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Queer Wikipedians Hyacinth (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (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:American 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 discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Neither side had particularly strong arguments, so "mostly harmless" won out in a sense. Wizardman 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Wikipedians
I was reading the multiple discussions about the deletion of some other categories which people self-select to include themselves in but which were otherwise harmless, and note that this one also fails the requirement for a clear collaborative use. It clearly has a large number of members but doesn't seem to actually promote any useful activity thereby, hence this nomination. --AlisonW (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's been suggested that location-based categories can help foster collaboration due to the ability to provide relevant images/photos. That said, I agree that <x> Wikipedians can be vague. I'd suggest merging to Category:Wikipedians in North America, but it's questionable if all the members categorised themselves for those reasons. So to not accidentally miscategorise Wikipedians, I would support deleting, with a note to all former members about the above location category, as a suggestion. - jc37 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider Category:Wikipedians in North America equally as lacking in a collaborative purpose. --AlisonW (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd rather see it as a parent category, which would hold all the countries of North America. I would agree that Wikipedians probably shouldn't be a member of the cat directly, but rather each a member of one of its subcats. - jc37 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mostly harmless. We can argue all day about utility, but at the end of the day it simply comes down to whether you think users can categorise as they want within reason or not. I guess I'm of the opinion that the userbox wars are a thing of the past now and we can kind of let go of that straitjacket somewhat. Hiding T 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that other 'primarily self-definition' categories have been deleted though, why should this one survive? --AlisonW (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be deleted? Otherstuff is not an argument for deletion as much as it is not an argument against deletion. If there is no consensus that this category is of no use to wikipedians, it should not be deleted. We are here to generate the consensus or lack of it. Hiding T 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note that these are user categories, and not userboxes. Userboxes are template notices on a userpage. User categories are category groupings which are used as tools for navigation. Please don't confuse the two - though it's easy to do so, as I well know.) - jc37 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Hiding T 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in response to your comment: "I guess I'm of the opinion that the userbox wars are a thing of the past now...". - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the two were heavily related the point is entirely valid. The guidance on user categories grew from the userbox wars. User category use exploded because of userboxes. The userbox war ended. We can let go of the straitjacket on user categories that was developed during that time. Hiding T 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that this be closed and considered with the January 3 discussion on Wikipedians by location. This is just one of them. I would however support a rename to Category:Wikipedians in North America and that be used as a parent category as discussed above. --Bduke (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree, except that it's rather vague in naming. If we follow that path, then I'd rather see it deleted, with a note to each member for alternatives with clearer names. (We should obviously avoid miscategorising Wikipedians. Better to delete than be inaccurate - erring on the side of caution.) - jc37 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Better to keep if we can't agree on an outcome or have doubt in our minds. If in doubt don't delete. Hiding T 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about the technical side of categories. To rename a category, we actually depopulate the category; delete the category page; create a new category page; and then repopulate the category. So what I'm suggesting is to not do the last step. Instead of automatically repopulating, allow the users to repopulate as they choose, since the new name may not have the same sense of inclusion criteria as the older name. - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If user categories are only acceptable when they assist with collaboration, how does this category do so? Without that answer I must vote delete. Hyacinth (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head I can think of a lot of ways we can use then by crossing with a second category via WP:CATSCAN. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my statements made on User:Ned Scott/User categories. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per precedent, especially precedent ragarding Queer Wikipedians, LGBT Wikipedians, Gay Wikipedians, Lesbian Wikipedians, Bisexual Wikipedians, Asexual Wikipedians, Pansexual Wikipedians and all others were deleted. If you want something similar, start a "Wikipedians interested in American issues" cat as those who argued to keep Queer Wikipedians were told to create a "Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues" cat and subsequentally that's what happened. User categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration. ALLSTARecho 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overly broad. Not sufficiently defining. Runs into identity-naming considerations (like it or not, "Americans" has come is often understood to refer specifically to United States citizens; Canadians and Mexicans don't necessarily think of themselves as "Americans"). If what we want is a location hierarchy of categories, then the logical hierarchy runs downhill from continent to nation to lower-order geographical divisions. Above all else, the ambiguity of whether "American" refers to all residents of the Americas,l all residents of North America, all residents of the United States, or native-born citizens of the United States is something that would be wise to avoid; keep this category and I see endless and ultimately irresolvable debate ahead. --7Kim (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - Is this much different from anything else in Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality? I think there should be a group nom if this is to be deleted, as whatever reasoning behind this would most likely apply to anything else in that category. VegaDark (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a little different (though similar to the Carribean ones), in that the inclusion criteria of "American", as noted above, can be vague. - jc37 22:08, 18 January 2008 (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.

January 7[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series[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 discussion was no consensus. Hiding T 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series to Category:Wikipedian fans of the Richard Sharpe series
Speedy rename: A shorter formulation that matches the more general "Wikipedian fans" convention. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (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 are fans of the Redwall Series[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 discussion was no consensus. Hiding T 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Redwall Series to Category:Wikipedian fans of the Redwall series
Speedy rename: To fix capitalisation; a shorter formulation that matches the more general "Wikipedian fans" convention. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:15, 1 January 2008 (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.

January 5[edit]

Category:Robot Wars 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 discussion was after cutting through all the waffle, the consensus in the debate is to rename to Category:Wikipedian Robot Wars fans. Hiding T 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Robot Wars fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Robot Wars
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that it's a user category, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I seem to recall there was a question in the past about "sporting"-type television shows, such as WWE. This would seem to fall even more closely under that grouping (as I don't believe it's pre-choreographed). So though I'm fence straddling, I'm leaning towards Category:Wikipedian Robot Wars fans. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no real preference for either format, so that would be fine also. (I should note, however, that the WWE category is located at Category:Wikipedians who like WWE. The "Wikipedian X fans" categories seem to be used primarily for sports teams and events.) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given it more thought. (And this mostly due to the fact that chess is considered a "Sport" in some places.) I think we should use the "fans" convention for competitive reality shows, such as robot wars or the various versions of american idol, etc. If you can think of reasons to not, I still may topple the other way, but at the moment, this seems to make the most sense to me. - jc37 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a fan of lots of shows, but that doesn't imply I want to collaborate on articles relating to those shows. While the "who like" convention is certainly no better in this regard, I don't see how it is any worse than the "fans" version of the category. IMO these should all be renamed to "interested in" in a group nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since most of these are populated by userboxes that do not express an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject, I feel we ought to avoid a straightforward rename. As you said, being a fan of a show doesn't necessarily imply a desire to collaborate on articles relating to the show. As for choosing a particular convention for this category, I have only a miniscule preference for "Wikipedians who like...", since the "Wikipedian XXXX fans" convention is already used for user categories for sports teams. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, if the category no longer applies to the user, they will remove themselves from it, so I usually don't mind a rename such as expressed above if it is substantially similar from the original category name. Also, in my experience, getting a rename consensus can be a lot easier than getting a delete consensus on UCFD, so I usually prefer that option. VegaDark (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that's true in theory, it assumes that: (1) the user is active, (2) the user notices any changes to the list of categories at the bottom of their userpage. With regard to the first assumption, a few samples I've previously looked at suggest that generally between one-fourth and one-half of users in a category have not edited in six weeks or more. With regard to the second, the user is likely to notice any hard edits, but changing categorisation via a transcluded userbox is much easier to miss. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems we're all waffling somewhat. Let's decide on a name to avoid "no consensus". I prefer "fans", because I don't think we should be in the business of judging what should be considered a "sport". I think "fans" should be used for those who are "fans" of some competition, whether it be an athletic "sport", or any other competition (which includes automotive racing, chess, and, perhaps, in this case, Robot Wars). WWE isn't truly a competition. (Due to prior choreography, it's more of a performance art.) So I see a good reason to use "who like" in that case. And I'm leaning to "who like" for most reality show competitions, since it's starting to come out that scenes are being "reshot", and because often they are "phone in" competitions, or some just merely subjective to some producers' or celebrity judges' whims (popularity contest vs. skill contest). Robot Wars on the other hand, would seem to actually be competition of skill fo some kind. Hence my leaning towards "fans". I hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (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 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC) - as noted, too much waffling - please pick one of the other. --After Midnight 0001 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either your or BF's suggested name is fine with me for now. The main problem with this category is that it shows no indication it is a user category, once we fix that the main issue with this cat is gone. VegaDark (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (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.


PGP 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 discussion was Merge. The consensus is that the two categories be merged somewhere. The consensus also appears to be that Category:Wikipedians who use PGP is the best suggestion everyone can agree on that has arisen in the two discussions so far, so I think it's best if that merge is implented, and then if people can agree on a better name they are always welcome to return here. Hiding T 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian using a PGP Key
Category:Wikipedians who use PGP

I think there was mostly consensus for merging the two categories, the concern is to what the target should be. Category:Wikipedians who use a PGP key seemed to be the "most stable". (Preferring "who use", over "using".) The only further concerns were whether to add the word "encryption", and whether to substitute "openPGP" for "PGP". So giving them numbers:

Take your pick or suggest something additional, your choice : ) - jc37 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Waffling - I'm still not sure, and am hoping for further discussion. - jc37 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to any of the above. I'd slightly prefer #2 or #4 due to more clarification on what the category is for, but 1 or 3 is certainly preferable to another no consensus. VegaDark (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't this a no consensus close from 21 Dec? Why not get consensus from the category members what the right thing to do is (you know, ask the members, the people using the category, on the talk page for the category, to determine what would best serve THEIR needs, instead of talking here amongst yourselves), let it sit a few weeks and then bring it back here instead of waiting a day or three after the close? ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User categories don't exist to serve the editors they contain; they exist to serve the needs of editors for whom a grouping of users on a certain characteristic is useful. I am not a Wikipedian in Egypt, but I can use the category to e.g. see if an editor could take a free image of a building in Cairo. The previous discussion closed as "no consensus" in large part due to the fact that numerous options continued to be presented over time, thus producing a situation with everyone endorsing a different option. That's less likely to be an issue this time, given the context of the prior discussion and jc37's summary nomination statement. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User categories serve both those who are in them and those who are not. To assume they are of no utility whatever to those who are in them, and that their opinions ought to be completely disregarded misses the mark, at best. I see absolutely no reason for a relist now in any case. ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't assume that user categories are of no utility to category members as there may well be category members "for whom a grouping of users on a certain characteristic is useful", nor did I suggest that we should disregard the opinion of any editor. I only stated that we should emphasise utility (which applies to more than just category members) rather than mere membership (which applies only to category members). – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've contacted Xaosflux as someone in one of those cats who has taken part in UCFD in the past year. Don't want to spam the others yet, though you may wish to. The first cat contains people who use {{User:Esurnir/PGP}}, which does not provide the actual public encryption key. The other cat contains people who use the 2 userboxes it links to, which do provide the public encryption key. The second is a lot more useful for those who wish to immediately engage in encrypted interaction, though I can't think of any scenario in which someone might want to do this while ignoring the first cat, as they could simply contact them to ask what their public encryption key is. Saying "who use an encryption key" sounds ignorant, as they have a corresponding private decryption key. Furthermore, the encryption is for others to use as well. If I'm not horribly mistaken here, it's probably hard to have a concise name that reflects exactly what the cats contain. I am inclined right now to prefer Category:Wikipedians who use OpenPGP, with a capital O. –Pomte 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Lar here, wouldn't the first step have been to generate some discussion at the category talk page, and then bring it back here. I'm missing the part where this is the only venue to discuss these issues, and the people who watch this page are the best people to discuss it. Beyond that, yes I can see a value in a merge, but I don't have the knowledge to know what the best name to merge to is. Per our guidance, the best people to make that decision would be the people listed in the categories. So I don't get why we openly reject their opinions. Hiding T 10:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main benefit of this category is that you can find other to be part of a web of trust. You can't really use xGP without an encryption key (well you can but noone is going to advertise that they are using xGP in symetric (standalone) mode)). PGP, GPG, xOPGP, are generally standards based, so specifying a flavor would be a possibility of a subcategory, not a parent. In addition to expanding web of trust's, this category is useful for finding editors proficient in this application protocol. Based on that, I support merging these to Category:Wikipedians who use PGP, but am not strongly opposed to a rename, so long as the category still exists. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category talk page discussions are notorious for having a single member of the discussion, hence why I just renominated, presuming interested parties would comment here, as they might in any CfD/UCFD discussion. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 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 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I know that there is consensus to merge these 2 together, but unless we can get some agreement in the next 5 days on the name for the merge target, this will be another no consensus (which I think that nobody wants). --After Midnight 0001 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just go with xaosflux's proposal as the most informed one? If consensus is to merge, then merge. The name isn't the most important part of this discussion. Any of the proposed names approximately indicates what the category is about, which is practically good enough (even better in the context of seeing it at the bottom of a user page with a PGP userbox). –Pomte 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're suggesting - Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who use PGP, fine with me. I think xaosflux clarified it well enough, though I'll still waffle on a final name based on more and more discussion (read that as essentially: I don't care in this case, as long as whatever is chosen is shown to be accurate and precise). - jc37 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me as well, for now. In the future we can debate if a more precise name is needed, but the key issue here is that there are two categories that are meant to include the same people, so once these are merged the majority of the issue is solved. VegaDark (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2008 (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.

January 3[edit]

Wikipedians by location[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 discussion was no consensus. Strong arguments are made for renaming and for keeping with the status quo. For now, at least, the sides are nearly evenly split, making consensus next to impossible. Bring up for review in three months to see if it has changed. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by location for the category list.
This has been discussed several times in individual nominations, always with the suggestion that there should probably be a group nomination towards this result.
As I did research for this, I find that this is not a new discussion by any means. If you look over Wikipedia talk:User categorisation, this was an ongoing discussion. (And I'm not sure I see a consensus even then.)
One person notes the following list, which I think is as good as any to list the options:
  1. "Adjective foo"
  2. "Foo of bar"
  3. "Foo in bar"
  4. "Foo from bar"
  5. "Foo interested in or involved with, etc. bar"
After many (several years of) discussions, it seems clear that #1 and #5 just aren't precise enough for the wanted usage, which is dual: a sense of community, and usefulness in collaboration. It is the latter possibilities for collaboration/contribution which has saved these categories from summary deletion as other similar ones have been. (See this CFD discussion for an interesting example.)
So we're left to choose between of, in, and from.
We may disregard the quantity of examples of each (and there are still examples of each), since the changing from one to another has been considered a "speedy" change, and there have been many such changes, and Template:Usercat automatically uses the "in" version as a default (which should be simple enough to modify).
of - I don't think that this works. Unless you are King James I of England, or Mayor of New York City, or some other such person identified in some way with the location, it would seem that "of" isn't the proper preposition.
in - I don't think this is good either. It's too subjective. Does "in" mean that I'm now standing in that location? Does it mean from (note the word) where I edit Wikipedia? (The two could be different.) Both? I'll make further comment about this below.
from - I think that this is probably the best of the choices. Since "we are all Wikipedians here"; and the "here" is Wikipedia, then grammatically, anywhere else is where the Wikipedian is "from". Compare it to being at a convention of some kind. One may leave a personal or business card (for navigational purposes, of course : ) - which may be grouped by others from the same region/area.
"from" also has the added benefit of dealing with several confusions, such as the "Carribean question" that was discussed recently (and I note was also mentioned at least as far back as 2005 on Wikipedia talk:User categorisation. (By the way, though that page is historical, it's worth reading if you'd like to get a sense of the history of the location cats, and Wikipedian cats over all, for that matter.)
Note that there are other categories "under the by location tree", such as Category:Wikipedians who listen to KROQ (which has been removed). But I feel that the rest either involve miscategorisation , or should have separate nominations. AFAIK this nom includes all the in/of/from (and slight variations) categories.
Also, I am more than happy to split off any individual category which someone may feel deserves its own nomination (such as to further modify the name, or even for deletion, or whatever), as long as it's understood that the results of this nom should still apply. (In that vein I am splitting off the prefecture categories, above.) - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Wikipedians from...", as nominator. - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am in new orleans, I am not from new orleans and am perfectly happy with the category I'm in. Don't see the point of this. R. Baley (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When you go on holiday (vacation), to another city/state/country, when you talk with others there, do you say that you "in" New Orleans? Or do you say that you are "from" New Orleans? I would presume the latter. While I don't know if everyone would call Wikipedia a vacation or holiday, when you come here, you are "from" wherever you are from. Yes, you may be sitting at your computer typing "in" your underwear, while currently residing "in" the city of New Orleans, but the moment I ask you about your location, I ask: "So where are you from?" (Or for those more grammatically tense: "From whither didst thou come?" : ) - jc37 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{User expat Americans in Canada}} arguably should add to 2 cats, but it'd be counterintuitive to see "..from U.S." and "..from Canada" –Pomte 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another good example. In this case, I would suggest that the Wikipedian category be removed from the userbox, to allow the Wikipedians in question to categorise themselves as they wish. If the person feels that they are from the US, then add themselves. If they feel they are from Canada, then feel free to add themselves. The idea is to allow Wikipedians to state where they are from. (This is a case where the userbox should not do so for them.) This also will allow us to remove the temporal issue from the cats as well. As we discussed in the US military cats, it doesn't matter when you were where, for you to have photos to contribute (for example). And as an aside, I think we'd agree that a category called Wikipedian expatriots would likely be deleted. - jc37 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be confused and does not understand some of what is actually going on. Category:Wikipedians in Australia is for. as it says "Wikipedians who live in Australia, and other participants in the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. For people of Australian descent who do not necessarily live in Australia, see Category:Australian Wikipedians." We have two categories. We also have two other concepts. I was born in Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom, so I could appear in Category:Wikipedians from Yorkshire, Category:Wikipedians from England, or Category:Wikipedians from the United Kingdom. I now live in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, so I could be in Category:Wikipedians in Melbourne, Category:Wikipedians in Victoria or Category:Wikipedians in Australia. "In" and 'from" are completely different. The redlinks show that this is not understood. I am not in any "from" category, and I am in one of the "in" categories. I could also be in Category:English Wikipedians. I think this needs much more sorting out than is suggested here. I suggest this proposal be withdrawn and a general discussion be held somewhere. The question also arises whether we need any of these categories as most countries now have WikiProjects and membership of those show who is prepared to collaborate on articles. --Bduke (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "X Wikipedians" is confusing in naming, since it also seems to be the convention for nationality/ethnicity cats. Precision/clarity is another reason for this nomination for discussion. The "redlinks" are merely because we've had speedy renaming to "in". (Which was apparently arbitrarily chosen.) It would not be far outside speedy criteria to have speedily renamed "in" to "from". However, I would prefer the larger discussion, hence (again) this nomination for discussion. As for WikiProjects vs. Wikipedian categories, I'd be all for that discussion (elsewhere, as you mention), but thus far it hasn't been as successful (hasn't even gotten off the ground) as some might like. - jc37 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the convention of "Wikipedians in or from"? i.e. Category:Wikipedians in or from California? This will satisfy both the people who wish to categorize where they currently are and those who wish to categorize where they are from. Additionally I think we should specify how small of cities are acceptable to create categories for before a category gets too small to facilitate collaboration. Should a category be allowed for a city as small as 50,000? 10,000? What should the cutoff be? VegaDark (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait 3 months, then apply WP:500K: there should be a minimum of one Wikipedian in the category, plus one more for every 500,000 people in a city. Or, just let things flow and from time to time people will nominate ones that would probably be deemed too small to be helpful by the righteous consensus here. –Pomte 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Wikipedians in or from X". Later we can merge in the "Xian Wikipedians" after another debate. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Support "Wikipedians in or from X". I understand the idea, but I do cringe at this suggestion. It weakens the usage of "from" in how it's contextually meant/defined. (And for "unnecessary" length.) But if consensus forms behind this phrasing, I won't oppose. - jc37 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in, from, of, to what ever isnt this a case of WP:BIAS because the english language has many different and varied ways to say(spell) the same thing what develops is the way in which people of certain areas speak. Being different doesnt make it a valid reason to delete or rename, when writing article we are consistent with the local form of english what ever the variety is why cant categories be the same. Gnangarra 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That logic could be used to argue against renaming any given category under the claim that such a rename would introduce "bias". Frankly that logic doesn't work at all when it comes to categories, as having multiple categories that mean the same thing would acutally inhibit collaboration by making it harder to find a single category for users to collaborate with, rather users would have to search multiple categories for such people. It is clear that whatever bias you claim is introduced (which I am not convinced of in the first place) is outweighed by uniform naming conventions to make collaboration easier. VegaDark (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As R. Baley notes above - I am in London, and that is what these categories imply. I suggest that a parallel set of "Category: Wikipedians from X" categories is started and then everybody can be happy. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are intended for navigation. Having separate (eventually duplicate) trees would not be an aid to navigation, but a hindrance to it. - jc37 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree entirely with your assertion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. May I ask for clarification why? - jc37 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about "Wikipedians knowledgeable of location"? That way, if I'm from Cape Town, and I've been living in Abidjan for 2 years I can have both cats. If however if I'm from Cape Town but don't remember much of the city, province, or country because I've been living in Abidjan since I was 3 years old, I'd only have the Abidjan cat. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-05t07:45z
  • Mixed opinion - If the intent of the category is to group editors by their current location of residence, then use the naming strategy "Wikipedians in <location>". If the intent of the category is to group editors by their interest in a particular location, then use the "Wikipedians interested in <location>". The "Wikipedians from <location>" naming strategy may or may not include residents of that location (I would assume that residents were included, but others seem to disagree), and would include expatriates of that location. That would be no less ambiguous than an "...interested in..." category. I like the idea of maintaining categories which identify location because people in a particular location have access to local resources which are unavailable to the rest of us. So, definitely leave the "Wikipedians in <location>" categories as they are. I dunno about the existing "Wikipedians from <location>" categories. Because they could go either way, I would suggest separate nomainations. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that someone need not currently be "in" a location in order to contribute information about that location, including photos, etc. For example, if someone lived in London for 10 years, and moved to Marsailles, and has lived there for 10 years, I would think that the person should be able to claim being "from" either place, should they wish to, and I would presume that if they claim so, that they might be able to contribute information photos concerning each location. So let's have one collaboration/contribution related to one's location, rather than having multiple trees and duplicate categorisation. - jc37 12:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Leave as is I am in Calgary. I am not from Calgary. If anything there should be two seperate categories for each. -Djsasso (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is. Some people come from some place and live in some other place, and it's all useful on some level to facilitate meet ups and getting requested images and the like. Hiding T 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in" helping in meetups does have a use at improving the encyclopedia, as does "knowledgeable of". "from" does not always. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-12t19:16z
  • Keep. I am in Rochester, NY - not from - the category is fine. Seems kind of a useless discussion to me... --Dan LeveilleTALK 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I am in Rochester, not from Rochester. When I am in California, I tell people "I live in Rochester." I Wouldn't tell them "I am from Rochester" because I am from Pittsford. Kingturtle (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (question about piping moved to bot operator's talk page) - I suppose I should comment on the discussion, too. I haven't seen a problem with the current category scheme. Then again, I'm not entirely sure why these were put up for discussion in the first place, so I'm going to be neutral. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
  • Comment - Perhaps we can allow both "in" and "from" versions of the categories, but merge any other "by location" categories that don't fit this naming convention in to one of the two versions. That would at least narrow it down to 2, and most of the complaints are due to wanting seperate "in" and "from" categories. For instance, "Wikipedians who live in", "Wikipedian Citizens of" and "Wikipedians on" get changed to "Wikipedians in", while "Wikipedians of" gets changed to "Wikipedians from". VegaDark (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support VegaDark's proposal of dual cats directly above. (Or another way to put it is to say: Keep "...in..." and "...from...", Merge all the rest to one or the other.) I'd prefer a single cat, but at least 2 is better than the several versions we have now. - jc37 09:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking the above proposal "Wikipedians in/from X" or "Wikipedians in or from X" might be the best way to go. Selfishly, I went to look at the cats that affect me Category:Wikipedians_in_Louisiana (the new orleans subcat there). And now I'm thinking that there should be 1 cat per location (Maybe wikipedians associated with x? though I hate that phrasing). Also, is there any reason my user name couldn't also appear in the "Louisiana" cat automaically, without me having to add it seperately (as I'm in the NO subcat)? just wondering. R. Baley (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (general comment) Just to be clear, my motive for changing anything at all is that a single category per location is more useful in terms of navigation as well as being more inclusive for wiki-editors. Thinking about it, if an editor saw one category for the city that he was from/lived in/lived in at one time, whatever, she might not include it on her page because it wasn't worded in a way that appeared to apply to himself. A lot of editors wouldn't be wiki-savvy enough to create one that did apply. And even if they were savvy enough, it would unnecessarily break up people into groups which are meaningless in terms of collaborating with each other. So, in practical terms, if I only saw a cat that said Wikipedians from New Orleans, I might not have added it at all (especially if there were no statement at the top of the page describing all the various ways the category could apply). And I wonder if this has happened to other editors, thus reducing collaborative possibilities and info exchange. R. Baley (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've quite nearly exactly hit the nail on the head for why I nominated this : )
    Though in/from/of are different semantically (and somewhat denotatively); for navigational purposes, they should be merged at least into 2 cats, if not 1. "In" and "from" seem to be the clearest words for each perception (and there seems to be consensus at least for that above). There just seems to be no consensus yet whether "in" and "from" should be merged. I have no problem with that, as that question can always be asked in a future nomination. It's enough of a start to at least determine a convention about the rest of the disparately named cats. - jc37 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe another twist on this... For each location X, have a "Wikipedians of X" category which has subcategories "Wikipedians in X" and "Wikipedians from X". It would allow "Wikipedians who have visited X" as well as other similar additional subcategories under "of". Pros: it organizes the categories, keeping them navigable between each other, while letting Wikipedians decide how they wish to associate with a location. Con: it makes potentially explosive growth in location categories. Ikluft (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we dropped any prepositions all together, "Wikipedians:Location" and/or reversed the order "Location Wikipedians". If those don't work, it seems (from my cursory look over my parent location categories) that "Wikipedians in ______" predominates, but there are user box choices that allow one to specify "in" or "from" or whatever. R. Baley (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As many others have stated there are many users who are in a location but not from that location. Leave the "in"s as they are and start new "from"s if need be and put them both under one "of" cat as R. Baley seems to be suggesting. ALLSTARecho 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ASE, thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify, I think we need just exactly one category per geographical location. Currently the predominate use looks to be "Wikipedians in _______". So, keeping that involves the least fiddling. At the same time it appears that people can designate what they really mean with a userbox of specific (or more inclusive) wording --which will automatically add them to the category. (if I'm wrong here JC37, -set me straight). If this is the case, then the simplest structure is achieved, -while allowing everyone to accurately describe their relationship to a location. —R. Baley (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "predominate use" is "in", merely because changing a preposition is typically a speedy criteria, which has had at least 2 years of speedies. Even in light of that, however, there are still other variations. I think that that's enough to give pause. And enough to justify a nomination in order to suggest a standard convention. As for the rest, you, as everyone, are welcome to offer what you think the result should be. Personally, I think "from" is the more multi-purpose in utility, and thus more "useful". But if consensus is that we need "from" and "in", so be it. - jc37 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd much rather just delete the lot, but rename per nom. David Fuchs (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal, English is flexible enough that we can just leave out the preposition entirely, if that's what's causing all the angst here. Examples would be Category:New York City wikipedians, Category:France wikipedians, Category:India wikipedians, etc. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    X Wikipedians is just too vague to be useful. We've had several such nominations which have indicated the problems inherent (the confusion) in such naming. - jc37 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echo David Fuchs wrt favouring deletion. Alternatively, I would agree with Elipongo that doing away with all prepositions may be a compromise. But I'll take jc37's word for it that such has already been tried and met resistance. Therefore rename per nom. User:Dorftrottel 05:25, January 18, 2008
Arbitrary break 2[edit]
  • Comment - just to muddy the waters a bit more (smile), according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence and Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By place, "from" is the proper usage. Does anyone have any reason that we should not follow the mainspace naming conventions? - jc37 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And (except for the fact that I would oppose its enaction, in this case, for the same reason I decided to make a regular nomination), this means that one could cite CSD criteria C2.4, and speedily rename all these location cats. - jc37 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason is that these categories are in the user space and not the article space. The reason article space pages shouldn't be categorised so is because the issue was divisive, people could not agree on what in and from meant and how to apply it. User categories allow us to have the definitive statement in a way that article categories do not. The person in question self selects. Unless we have started applying WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to user pages, I see no reason why other main space guidance should be applied where it isn't necessary or intended. Hiding T 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be "technical", these categories are in Category-space. These categories merely categorise pages in userspace. But that aside, this has nothing to do with content verifiability. It has to do with an accurate naming standard. And I don't see how accuracy in naming for grouping people would change whether grouping Wikipedian people, or grouping any other person on earth. If a persons' place of residence suggests "from", I would presume that it does so regardless of who it is that we're discussing. - jc37 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can be different because we are actually looking at two different things. In one instance we are collaboratively deciding on how to categorise a third party. In the other instance we are deciding how to categorise ourselves. I think when we categorise ourselves we do not have to be so rigid or accurate in our naming structure since we are not as answerable to our readership, nor are we asserting anything to it. We are instead beholden to aiding collaboration and to other editors. I'm terming editors here as being those who actively edit Wikipedia, whilst readers are those who do not edit or edit little, sporadically or solely in article space. Many respondents above have pointed out a utility in having "in" and "from" since they describe different things. I don't think the standard you are pointing to usurps or is even intended to usurp that opinion. Hiding T 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying, and I've been there myself. But after several years of dealing with categories (not just user cats) I've found that the predominate feeling is that we shouldn't have a category for everything. (Or even a category for anything one can think of.) This was part of the reasoning for the convention renames of a year and a half ago in which Mike Selinker did a large number of group renaming for convention. And that makes sense. The point of categories is navigation. and seriously, having Wikipedians scattered throughout several categories which have essentially the same (or similar) inclusion criteria increases difficulty in navigation. That said, as I mentioned above, in this case, if the best we can do consensually atm is have two cats ("from" and "in") then I can accept that as a decent compromise, and we can merge the rest to those two. - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Keep "in" and "from" Agree with many arguments above, including Djsasso, Hiding etc. I'm in Australia, but was born elsewhere. I see no reason to keep alternatives to "in" and "from" though - and "of" is silly. Orderinchaos 19:33, 19 January 2008 (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.

January 1[edit]

Category:Wikipedians with M.Phil degrees[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 03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with M.Phil degrees to Category:Wikipedians with MPhil degrees
Speedy merge: Redundant categories; the latter title matches the convention of Category:Wikipedians by degree. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Master of Philosophy abbreviates it to M.Phil. Anyone know which is correct? Also, why not just spell out the entire thing rather than abbreviate it at all, for those who might not know what it stands for? VegaDark (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are fairly widely used by both US and UK institutions. As for spelling out the degree name, I'm not certain why it wasn't done at the start, though length was likely a consideration. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: seems not speedy, do you want to move this to the dated section for further discussion, or remove and relist with a new proposal? --After Midnight 0001 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a move to a dated section would be better, since it would permit continued discussion of the merits of different naming conventions. To which dated section should it be moved: December 28 (date of listing) or December 31? – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry - I forgot to look back here. I would move it to the current day, since I think that most users don't look in the speedy section and we can give it 5 full days from when you move it. --After Midnight 0001 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I seem to recall that when Mike Selinker nominated all of the degree cats, there was a disagreement over whether the "." should be used or not (as well as the question of spelling them out). Perhaps this should be determined in a group nom, with this nomination withdrawn to be part of that? Else we should probably just follow convention : ) - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (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 hitchhikers[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 - db-author. - jc37 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not facilitate collaboration. Only one article relating to hitchhiking, so a category is not needed for those interested in collaborating on hitchiking articles. Aditionally, just because someone is a hitchhiker does not mean that they would want to collaborate on hitchiking articles even if there was sufficient articles for such a category to facilitate collaboration on. No encyclopedic purpose to seek out users in this category. VegaDark (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (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 have travelled to Vimy Ridge[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 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have travelled to Vimy Ridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The scope is too narrow to justify a category. Not only does the userbox (User:MelicansMatkin/userbox/Vimyrededication) express a past affiliation, but the category is intended for a single location only. (During the course of an average week, I travel to, through, or near more than 100 locations, buildings, and structures that have Wikipedia articles.) Moreover, any collaborative potential is limited to just one article (Canadian National Vimy Memorial) and so could just as easily take place on the article's talk page. Are we to have user categories for every building, structure, and minor location in the world? (See related discussions at WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians who travel)
  • Delete as nominator and per precedent against "Wikipedians who travel" categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was planning on nominating this, but you beat me to it. We certainly don't want a "who have travelled to" category for every location. Additionally, just because someone has travelled to a location does not imply any ability or intention of collaborating on articles relating to that location, so these type of categories do not benefit the encyclopedia whatsoever. VegaDark (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. That said, I would like to clarify something: I agree that categorising Wikipedians by travel to a single monument/memorial will typically be a single article category. I agree that "who travelled to" some politic location (whether it's Russia or the USSR; is immaterial), or a recreational location (such as Disneyland), are also likely a bad idea. However, I wonder if "who travelled to" some geographical location might be useful in some cases. - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/January_2008&oldid=1147870194"