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

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

March 31[edit]

NOTE[edit]

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

The result of the debate was issue dealt with. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please just speedy delete all of the categories below which were accidentally/mistakenly created by Patricknoddy in order to post them here on UCfD? There should be no need to go through the whole discussion process to get this done. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted all of the ones where the only contributor was Patricknoddy. Most have only one or two entries, so these can be manually moved to the proposed merge/rename category. —Doug Bell 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in auto racing[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in auto racing. Initially I was going to suggest that it be renamed to Category:Wikipedian racecar drivers since, as noted below, this isn't about the fans, and merging the two would require a new nomination and tagging of both categories. (Racecar driver redirects to Auto racing, and "Auto racers" seems to be a neologism?) And then Category:Wikipedians interested in auto racing could be created to be a parent cat to both this sub-cat and Category:Wikipedian auto racing fans, as well as to include those interested, but neither play, nor are fans. (Following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision).) However, this category has only one member, So "UpMerging" instead. - jc37 13:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to Category:Wikipedians interested auto racing

That's the same thing. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 13:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in Autoracing, the rename request by the nominator was missing the in.Tellyaddict 14:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd like to merge those categories if at all possible, if "interested in" is created. If this is in fact for auto racers themselves then it could be Category:Wikipedian auto racers, but I don't see the benefit of categorizing auto racers vs. simply people interested in auto racing, since they can collaborate on articles equally. VegaDark 06:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in UK[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. - jc37 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Scouting (UK)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, do not Rename - jc37 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in Scouting

No. Scouts (UK) is one way to get in this category, but not the only way. --NThurston 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "...The Scout Assocation" leaves out Girl Guides and non Scout Assciation scouting associations (like the BP Scouts).Sumoeagle179 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alma mater categories without space after colon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename all but Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Catholic education. I will relist this, as I can't justify it under speedy renaming.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

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

Category:Wikipedians in their 20.999s[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Huh? This doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, its better to have rounded numbers.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Wikipedians in the Churches of Christ[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Does not contribute to the encyclopedia.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in sports[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians interested in sports

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Does not contribute to the encyclopedia.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Wikipedians in Virginia/Air transport freak[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Obviously created for Air transport freak.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in United States Of America[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in the United States

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in the United States

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in USA[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in the United States

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in North Dakota bethel99[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Seems to have been created for Bethel99 (hence the username in category).

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey, USA[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Arizona (U.S. state)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in Arizona

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians born in Idaho[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in Idaho

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians born in Hamilton, Ontario[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians in Hamilton, Ontario

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Who Support Israel[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Chelsea F.C. 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging to Category:Wikipedian Chelsea F.C. fans

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Born in 1991[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians Born in 1991 to Category:Wikipedians born in 1991

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians/Surrealist 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to Category:Wikipedians who are Surrealist

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians/Saxophonists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians/Saxophonists to Category:Wikipedian saxophonists

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians/Robots[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion The same guy (Promsan) made the category below.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians/Green users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion There aren't any Martians (or other green people, for that matter) that exist.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians In England[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians In England to Category:Wikipedians in England

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Who Watch Purge Pwnage[edit]

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

The result was speedy close, the category was misspelled, and obviously the correct spelling was existent. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion It is obviously a TV show, but there is no article about it on Wikipedia, so it must either be non-notable or non-existent.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Who Like LOST[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians Who Like LOST to Category:Wikipedians who like Lost

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Who Wish They Lived In Norway[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians Who Wish They Lived In Norway to Category:Wikipedians who want to live in Norway

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians against Vandalism[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion All Wikipedians would be in this category by defualt.

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian military[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian military to Category:Wikipedian military people

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian kentish men[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Doug Bell per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian kentish men to Category:Wikipedians in Kent

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian in Michigan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian in Michigan to Category:Wikipedians in Michigan

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian harpsichord players[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian harpsichord players to Category:Wikipedian harpsichordists

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Cooks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian Cooks to Category:Wikipedian chefs

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Immortals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Nobody is immortal. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 11:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian ************ 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request, please don't create categories just to nominate them at UCFD. VegaDark 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion This category is very silly. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 30[edit]

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians from Monterrey. VegaDark 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey to Category:Wikipedians from Monterrey

  • If that is the case, then rename all such categories. –Pomte 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep current name, if anyone wants to relist this for deletion feel free, but I doubt there will be a consensus to do so. VegaDark 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD to Category:Wikipedians in the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist

  • Rename as nominator. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category really is useless. Nobody could have a legitimate use for looking for others in this category that I can think of. A userbox is enough IMO. VegaDark 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could a category about a WP organization be useless? - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Jesus[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Upmerge to Category:Christian Wikipedians. VegaDark 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion This category is unencyclopedic. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this case it's best to assume the former, unless this gets put under review.--WaltCip 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians attending Innisdale Secondary School[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy close, this category is already nominated for renaming about 8 discussions down. VegaDark 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians attending Innisdale Secondary School to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Innisdale Secondary School

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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians attending Archbishop Temple School[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Archbishop Temple School.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians attending Archbishop Temple School to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Archbishop Temple School

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[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy depopulate per this UCFD. Someone needs to get a bot to periodically scan this any any other categories we determine need to be depopulated. VegaDark 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Propose depopulate all users from Category:Wikipedians[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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 29[edit]

Wikipedia award categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Category:Wikipedians who have received Wikihalos; No consensus on Barnstars. - The concerns seem to be directly about Barnstars, rather than just the awards in general. (Specifically, about not liking, or barely tolerating, or having not received barnstars.) Rename Category:Wikipedians who have received Wikihalos to Category:Wikihalo award recipients and Category:Wikipedians given the Film Barnstar to Category:WikiProject Film Barnstar recipients, per nominator's request for consistancy. (The words "Wikihalo" and "Barnstar" presume "Wikipedian" in this case, and "recipients" - with medallists and laureates - seems to be the standard for awards.) - jc37 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not help Wikipedia to categorize who has won what Wikipedia award. This is already easily accessable by looking at which pages are using the image, and categorizing users does not provide any extra benefit. There are dozens of Wikipedia awards, if we allow these categories we will allow for many, many more categories to be created, at it won't give any benefit to Wikipedia that I can see. If no consensus to delete, we at least need to match the naming conventions used. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - While I agree that we have quite a few awards at Wikipedia, the awards themselves are useful, both directly and indirectly, for collaboration. The same can be said for the categories in this case. Awards (similar to Wiki-philosophies) are helpful for knowing someone's interests in certain tasks. It includes WikiProjects, and even specific tasks within the WikiProjects, as well as policy, or even dealing with Vandalism, or any number of other tasks on Wikipedia. - jc37 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Wikipedia awards are given for any number of reasons, for instance a wikihalo. I would not go looking in that category for any reason, as someone could have reverted vandalism, someone could have rewritten an article, someone could have brought numberous categories to UCFD ;), or someone could have just asked their friend to give them one. The point is that someone looking in that category would not be able to look for anything specific, and thus it would be useless. It would be like having a category called Category:Wikipedians who have done something good on Wikipedia. Now, the film barnstar category is obviously more specific and would be more useful, BUT my point still stands that this information is already duplicated by looking at what pages use each image, so a category is unnecessary. VegaDark 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, shouldn't every user category include "Wikipedians who have done something good on Wikipedia"? : ) - I guess we better delete them all : ) - jc37 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per jc37. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think awards are totally arbitrary. I've done a lot of useful things on Wikipedia, and I've never received a barnstar or any other award. Mind you, I don't care about awards, because my contributions to this project endure regardless of how others perceive them. But I support deletion of this category as arbitrary. It cannot be compared to a category such as "Wikipedian inclusionists," which is populated by users who self-identify as inclusionists. YechielMan 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these are pointless and unhelpful as far as I can see. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I've learned to tolerate barnstars and such, but this is an unacceptable level of clutter. —ptk✰fgs 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Just because something exists, doesn't mean it belongs as a usercat. Xiner (talk, a promise) 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Wikipedians who have received Wikihalos → It's quite a special one, and it's useful to know who received it, since there are (if I remember right) less then ten guys who can say "I've received a wikihalo". The wikihalo is a special award, awarded by the community. | Neutral on the others → I haven't an opinion on that ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikihalo already lists the recipients though (I see there are many more people in the category than on the list...someone needs to update, or remove the award from some pages). Is a category in addition to this necessary? VegaDark 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it lists those who received the award by community consensus. Since then, the system for community nomination and "voting" has been removed, and it's become similar to other awards. (See the associated talk page - which is a redirect to another talk page - for more information.) - jc37 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with a Twisted Sense of Humour[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia building in any way to categorize users by this characteristic. A user box is more than enough, we don't need a category. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it helps as these will be the people editting the pages on less aminstream comics and comedy shows. One example of which would be the League of Gentlemen and another, Monkey Dust. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Both the nom and the commenter have good points. I'd like to see more discussion. - jc37 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: perhaps a better name would then be "Wikipedians interested in editing non-mainstream comics and comedy shows" or so - my sense of humour is probably somewhat twisted but I don't know crap about "less aminstream comics and comedy shows". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undefinable characteristic. TerriersFan 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a Proper Noun of Temperament. A twisted sense of humour is not solely associated with comics/comedy. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Comics and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Comedy. –Pomte 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's so unclear I can't see how it can be useful. Xiner (talk, a promise) 01:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If someone could suggest an alternative category into which this would fall, then I would happily depopulate this category. However, I feel that it is definable. Sense of humour being described [[1]]. We find from the [Etymology Dictionary] that twisted can mean "perverted, mentally strange". In this way we could redefine it as a perverted sense of humour, perverted in this sense meaning turned from what is right; wicked; misguided; distorted. The definition is found [[2]]. According to Roget's Thesaurus we could include people with a sense of humour that is: abandoned, base, corrupt, corrupted, debased, debauched, degenerate, degraded, dirty*, dirty-minded, dissolute, evil, fast*, filthy*, flagitious, infamous, kinky*, lascivious, lewd, licentious, low, mean, miscreant, nefarious, perverted, profligate, putrid, rotten, shameless, sinful, twisted, unhealthy, unnatural, vicious, vile, villainous, vitiate, vitiated, wanton, warped, wicked, aberrant, anomalous, atypical, bent, delirious, deviate, deviative, devious, different, divergent, freaky, heretical, heteroclite, irregular, kinky, off-key, perverse, perverted, preternatural, queer, twisted, unrepresentative, untypical, wandering, wayward, alien, bizarre, conflicting, contradictory, disconsonant, discordant, disparate, distorted, divergent, extraneous, fantastic, fitful, foreign, illogical, improper, inappropriate, inapropos, inapt, incoherent, incompatible, incongruent, inconsistent, irreconcilable, irregular, jumbled, loose, lopsided, mismatched, rambling, screwy, shifting, twisted, unavailing, unbalanced, unbecoming, unconnected, uncoordinated, uneven, unintelligible, unpredictable, unrelated, unsuitable, unsuited, acrid, alert, arrogant, backbiting, biting, bitter, burlesque, caustic, chaffing, clever, contemptuous, contradictory, critical, cutting, cynical, defiant, derisive, disparaging, double-edged, exaggerated, implausible, incisive, incongruous, ironical, jibing, keen, mocking, mordant, paradoxical, pungent, quick-witted, ridiculous, sardonic, satiric, satirical, scathing, scoffing, sharp, sneering, spicy, trenchant, twisted, uncomplimentary, unexpected, witty, wry. (I'm sorry for any repetition) All of which are synonyms of twisted.- Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Office. Most (though not all) of the discussion was concerned with version and platform. - jc37 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far too specific to support collaboration. I also don't recommend a renaming to Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Office, as almost everyone has used office and I don't think it would be helpful at all to categorize users there. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or rename if no consensus to delete as nominator. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Considering that the #1 key thing we do on Wikipedia is edit, I think that this is rather useful. - jc37 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree with the above, categorizing software by revision and category is needlessly precise. Is it really important if someone uses Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Gentoo as opposed to Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP? Categorizing by software might be useful (say, if you're sending files for collaborative purposes, or in need of technical assistance) but pidgeonholing by the specific software version and OS platform just seems excessive. Wintermut3 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that 2004 should be removed, but is there really no difference between the mac and pc clone versions? - jc37 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing worth talking about. There are essentially differences in how you get things started, but once you're in it, it's Office. The big difference is that Outlook is the email client for Windows, and Entourage is the email client for Mac, but there's both pretty similar.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that sounds different enough for talking/typing someone through an action? Hence the distinguishment is useful for collaborative purposes? - jc37 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I defer to your experience and expertise : ) - jc37 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no apparent distinctive features of Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac such that editing with it creates unique issues worthy of discussion between users. –Pomte 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my first choice. I would also support renaming as described by Mike Selinker if the sentiment is to keep a category for which software a user uses. The version and platform are unnecessary. —Doug Bell 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alma mater renaming[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated.--Mike Selinker 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per generally accepted naming conventions. Speedy? VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who think the US drinking age should be abolished[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by someone else due to author request. VegaDark 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Users" category that needs to be renamed to "Wikipedians". Also expanding "US" seems like a good idea, along with a little rewording. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:African American Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:African-American Wikipedians.

  • Merge/speedy merge as nominator. VegaDark 07:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - There have been innumerable nominations at WP:CFD regarding whether this should have a hyphen, and the results have been mixed. I tend to lean towards using the hyphen personally, but no opinion either way for use here. - jc37 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care where it is merged to as long as they are merged. I'd suggest merging it to the more populated cat first and then nominating it for renaming (Although I slightly prefer the hyphen version as well). VegaDark 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to hyphenated Proper english grammar insists that noun phrases used as adjectives use a hyphen. Thus a knife made of stainless steel is a stainless-steel knife, and an American wikipedian of African ancestry is African-American. To not use it makes it sound like a list of adjectives, they are not African and American, they are African-American. Wintermut3 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:African-American Wikipedians. Since when does people's personal preference trump proper English grammar? —Doug Bell 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for grammar. bibliomaniac15 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

6 speedy cats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Merge/Delete per comments below - jc37 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing these here instead of speedying them myself since these technically don't fit the speedy criteria, but should be speedied anyway due to past UCFD discussions resulting in deleting all 0-level categories and merging all "native" speaker of programming language categories, so I'd like another admin to "confirm" as speedy by closing. I'll probably do this in the future for any categories that should be speedied but don't "technically" meet the speedy criteria, just as an extra measure. VegaDark 03:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the criteria that we'd be setting up is something like:
  1. We should also probably reference/link to the previous discussion(s). In this case:
  2. That the previous group nomination was recent, which allows for the possibility that consensus can change in good faith.
  3. That both the original nom was and the speedy nom is straightforward and unambiguous.
  4. To speedy in this case requires at least 2 admins to speedy, but should stay listed here for at least 2 days so that others may comment. (As per speedy requirements, if 2 Wikipedians request, the nom is removed from speedy, and listed normally.)
I would like to avoid any posibility of future confusion. And nothing should be harmed if we wait the 5-7 days to allow for further discussion if requested.
All this said, I think the above nomination meets these requirements, and we should be able to speedy on the 29th, if no one objects in that time. All this aside, perhaps someone should note the 0-level language category consensuses (consensi?) at Wikipedia:Babel. - jc37 10:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've already left an note at the babel talk page, hopefully we won't see too many 0-level cats pop up in the future. VegaDark 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 28[edit]

Category:Wikipedians crushed by elephants (relisting)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to categorize people who have cheated on the Wikipediholic test. What possible use would categorizing these users have? Saying "Trust these people at your own risk!" for category members is a borderline personal attack on category members. Furthermore, this name is misleading. At minimum it should be renamed, but I highly recommend deleting this as not being helpful for encyclopedia building. "What links here" can find people who are using the template, we don't need a category. VegaDark 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians crushed by elephants[edit]

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

The result of the debate was relist, no longer speedyable now that cat has been populated. VegaDark 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, but won't be speedyable until it has been empty for 4 days (Unless an admin wants to IAR speedy, which I wouldn't oppose), so it can be listed here until then. We can move this down for an actual discussion if it gets populated, where this will surely end up being deleted. VegaDark 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me clarify, I'm the user who made this category. This is a category of users who cheated and were caught on the Wikipediholism test. By adding the template those of us who try to catch cheaters know which users can be trusted or not. I have yet to add any users to this category due to the nature of it(You caught it quick!). Perhaps a better idea would be to mark it as humorous? YuanchosaanSalutations! 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can check Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Elephantsquash instead of using this misleading category (cannot tell how it is humorous by just looking at it at the bottom of a user talk page). –Pomte 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. I'd rather the category be kept but... I guess I can always add a link to that on the test page. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. YuanchosaanSalutations! 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose speedy, it's not empty, just look at it. There are already two users listed in it, one of which is nonexsistant, another one who has been warned against vandalism. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia Accounts[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - In looking over the two accounts, it's obvious that the two users (possibly the same user having 2 accounts, considering the exact duplication of the userpages) mistakenly thought they needed to be a member of such a category in order to be a registered Wikipedian. - jc37 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. I just randomly happened upon this category from a search. It only has two entries, and is wrongly listed as a subcat of itself. What is the purpose of this category? This is my first post at UCfD, so let me know if I've done something wrong. Thanks. Seattle Skier (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Speedy delete per nom. All-inclusive, useless category. I think we might have deleted a category similar to this in the past, which would make this speedyable. VegaDark 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 27[edit]

Category:Teenage 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians in their teens. - jc37 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Teenage Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in their teens
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, For consistency with the other age brackets, which follow this naming convention. See Category:Wikipedians in their 20s. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and move to the appropriate discussion area for Wikipedian categories. Otherwise delete per previous discussions about categorizing children for privacy concerns. Otto4711 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pervert magnet. Casperonline 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion ~ BigrTex 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Force renaming, discount deletes - We'll deal with that later. It's the teenager's decision to make his or her information public. Do we have to have the government bearing down on Wikipedia when it's already in our daily life? I don't think we do. WP:CHILD was rejected by the community on December 5, 2006. So shall this deletion, provided the members of the category do not engage in disruptive conversation. WP:BURO.--WaltCip 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep. --tjstrf talk 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Not sure about deleting at this time. VegaDark 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge per consistancy. - jc37 11:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. for uniformity. --Valley2city₪‽ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to keep children safe from predators. ElinorD (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sure. Would that you could delete MySpace to keep children safe from predators.--WaltCip 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who didn't know there were two Montanas[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 11:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. This type of info can be kept on the userpage, no need to categorize. VegaDark 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. I think we've had enough set precedence to speedy delete categories like this. --WaltCip 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that this is a "not" category, however, this is more a personal comment than a category. A userbox, or userpage comment hsould be enough, in this case. - jc37 10:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nominator, I bit of a "not" category, whats next?....Tellyaddict 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absurd and most definitely a non-defining and non-collaborative characteristic. --tjstrf talk 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't a "not" category. It is for people who had no idea there were two Montanas. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, that's what he said: it's a category for people did 'not know there were two Montanas.

--tjstrf talk 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think even the rename passes the laugh test.--WaltCip 20:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still a "not" category.--WaltCip 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who don't insult vandals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by author request. VegaDark 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category violation, also a category that is potentially all-inclusive. Not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. VegaDark 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This however is a "not" category, and a potential "all-inclusive" category : ) - - jc37 10:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although they can be annoying, no Wikipedians are supposed to insult vandals, it wold technically violate WP:CIVIL.Tellyaddict 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as creator. I only created this because I saw it as a red category. On hindsight that was not such a good idea (need to assume good faith on other editors; cannot imply that they insult vandals). –Pomte 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy playing the racing arcade game Pole Position[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Pole Position. - jc37 11:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who play Pole Position (arcade game) per Pole Position (arcade game) and naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians who play video games. VegaDark 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians that play Viva Piñata.[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that play Viva Piñata. to Category:Wikipedians who play Viva Piñata - that > who, and removing punctuation. - jc37 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who play Viva Piñata per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians who play video games. ("that" changes to "who", also period at the end is removed) Speedyable? VegaDark 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parent categories to depopulate[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Depopulate per nomination. In other words: The intent of any "Wikipedian by..." category is to hold only sub-categories as members (i.e. the same as Category:Wikipedians). - jc37 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are parent categories and should not have any users in them, they should only have subcategories. There are many more categories like this, but I am only nominating these for now in order to do a "test run" so to speak to see if there will be any issues with doing this. It doesn't make sense to have users in these categories and we have used UCFD to decide on depopulating categories before. I don't see any use of keeping users in these categories. VegaDark 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depopulate users from all as nominator. VegaDark 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate users from language, OS, and browser categories.. The best that can be gleaned from the language, OS, and browser categories is that they are using a language, OS, or browser. These things are all technical requirements of using Wikipedia and are universally applicable. As for musical instruments, merging into a different category may be more appropriate (Category:Wikipedian musicians?). These users may be attempting to categorize themselves as musicians without applying an instrument-specific category. In all cases, I am pretty sure that most of these folks are ending up here via userboxes, so the situation should be fairly easy to sort out. —ptk✰fgs 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "...by musical instrument" - I removed the parent cat from the userbox. It seems someone didn't understand how piping in a category works? The one remaining user was a violinist, so I adjusted his category accordingly. - jc37 10:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate users from all per nom. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate. Should be empty. --Valley2city₪‽ 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 26[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy playing the Mortal Kombat game series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Mortal Kombat.--Mike Selinker 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more opinions.--Mike Selinker 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who play Mortal Kombat (series) per Mortal Kombat (series) and naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians who play video games. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tekken games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Tekken.--Mike Selinker 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more opinions.--Mike Selinker 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Tekken (series) per Tekken (series) and the fact that a category for each individual game is too specific for collaboration. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 25[edit]

Category:Awesome Users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per G10. The category's introduction makes this abundantly clear. Otherwise, it could still be deleted through process due to potentially including all Wikipedians : ) - jc37 09:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the category creator User:Parrotman has been indefinitely blocked for being chiefly a vandalism account. - jc37 10:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV, just created by someone who put themselves in that category. Contents are uncivil. I tried to justify this as G1 or G10 but I don't think it quite qualifies. —dgiestc 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. This might qualify as G1 or even G11.--Húsönd 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, possibly speedy delete - Category description is "doesn't it explain itself, morons?". Stuff like this should be speedy deletable, and I wouldn't complain if an admin with a broader interpretation of some of the speedy criteria speedied this, or IAR speedied this. VegaDark 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete nonsense. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with a stick. Inherently unhelpful. Heimstern Läufer 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...although I'm considering adding myself to it until it's deleted :) alphachimp 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G1. Pseudomonas 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 24[edit]

Cockroaches, Part 2[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep, with no prejudice against group nom for all subcategories of Wikipedians by pet in the future. VegaDark 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. At the moment it's no consensus, but since this nom was listed specifically to get more discussion, I'm relisting it a final time in the hopes a consensus will be achieved. - jc37 11:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians_who_own_cockroaches A user has objected to the closure of a previous discussion. I felt it prudent to revisit the issue, due to low participation in the previous discussion. This is a renomination.

  • Delete per my previous argument. Xiner (talk, email) 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the other category is deleted, Speedy Delete G4.--WaltCip 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Vote struck. Keep per others. --WaltCip 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:CSD#G4 does not apply here. Category was undeleted by decision of the deleting admin, within the undeletion policy.--Húsönd 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I joined this category even though it contained only another user because I thought that it could be useful for editors seeking user expertise in this Order of insects. In fact, I intend to expand Madagascar Hissing Cockroach, a species that thousands of people around the world keep as pets, including myself. Deleting this category while allowing the existence of other user pet categories is a blatant case of discrimination that I rarely, if ever, see on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 02:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't renaming the category to Category:Wikipedians interested in cockroaches better fit your needs? Surely, more than just people who own cockroaches might be willing to collaborate on cockroach related articles. Further, just because someone owns cockroaches doesn't mean they would want to help you collaborate on cockroach articles. Renaming everything in Wikipedians by pet to this convention solves this issue and makes the categories much more useful-Everybody wins, and the people who wish to simply state they own a pet can still do so on their userpage without the category. VegaDark 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think this was closed improperly, but if the user above believes that their roach is a pet, it's okay with me to have the category.--Mike Selinker 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would anyone object to deleting/renaming all Wikipedians by pet categories? We don't need to know who owns what pet, we need to know who is willing to collaborate on the articles relating to that pet. All these should be renamed to "Wikipedians interested in Dogs/Cats/Cockroaches/whatever else". If you want to say you have a pet, fine. You can do so with a userbox or somewhere on your userpage. If you want to use a user category, however, you are going to have to use it for collaborative purposes. Delete, by the way, even if there is no consensus to delete the rest. The less of these categories we have, the better. VegaDark 05:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's an idea, but I don't think it would serve the same purpose. Anyone could be listed in a category of "users interested in cockroaches" but it would imply no actual experience in these animals, whereas a category of "users who own cockroaches" implies that the people listed there are experienced cockroach owners and therefore may promptly provide answers to questions regarding their appearance, behavior, reproduction, handling, etc.--Húsönd 13:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Actual experience" should not be a factor in article collaboration, except on the talk page. Anyone who contributes to articles based on their actual experience, and not a reliable source, is contributing original research. Someone who has no experience with cockroaches whatsoever could be able to write a great article about them and could answer questions based on reliable sources. VegaDark 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They may not, or they may. People who have a different species of cockroaches may not be able to answer you either. We already have Wikipedia:Wikipedians by pet, a detailed document that is much more useful. Article talk pages are another good place to solicit info. I wouldn't mind an umbrella group Category:Wikipedians with pets just so people can find the list more easily, though. Xiner (talk, email) 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is true that there are several species of cockroaches that are kept as pets and a user owning a species wouldn't be able to provide help regarding the other ones. Creating a category such as Category:Wikipedians who own Madagascar hissing cockroaches would solve this problem through specification, but it's rather unnecessary at the moment as such a small number of users have declared to own cockroaches. Anyway, how would you justify the discrimination of cockroach owners if cat, dog and tamagotchi owners are allowed to have their categories?--Húsönd 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see value in any pet usercats as opposed to, say, interest in animals. I was thinking about a group nom before this resurfaced. WikiProject Arachnid is a better place to get authoritative, reliable info than pet owners. Xiner (talk, email) 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Huh? Why WikiProject Arachnid?--Húsönd 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural question moved to talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant category, their must be on about Wikipedians who own ants, if there is a merge would be possible but deletion is the first choice (in my opinion).Tellyaddict 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's not flippant it is at least overspecific. Metamagician3000 10:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my previous argument. It's not flippant, I provided several highly reliable references that this is an actual, if rare, pet (apparently more common in Australia than elsewhere). The category is useful specifically because it's a rare pet. It's not the same as "willing to participate" because who knows what who is willing to participate in? For me, that changes day by day, many articles I ended up completely rewriting are on subjects that I had no idea I would be interested in. I suspect I'm not alone in that. The kind of pet I own, however, won't change so fast, and I whether or not I will be interested in writing a whole article about it, I can certainly be asked a quick question "hey, some new editor just added this weird factoid - is it blatantly false, or could it be possible?" That's what this cat is going to be for, not major collaborations. BTW, for what it's worth, I don't own any, so this is, what ... amicus curiae? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I said the 1st time. I cannot imagine why anyone would do so, but there are people who do keep them as pets, or perhaps even think of cockroaches in general as pets. It would probably be useful if they could find each other, and it doesn't bother anyone else. Each to his own. DGG 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse. -- Vision Thing -- 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse and Husond. bibliomaniac15 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've changed my opinion from the last vote because I feel that the arguments for deleting it have been sufficiently destroyed. — Pious7TalkContribs 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who dislike Uncyclopedia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request below. VegaDark 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Dislike" category, which is the same as a "not" category. We have historically deleted all dislike categories as not facilitating collaboration. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dislike/"not like" category. - jc37 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only about 23 people in the category anyway. However, Keep the userbox. -- Jelly Soup 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The userbox will be kept. Please see the red box at the top of the page. VegaDark 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who despise vandalism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another category that all Wikipedians should be in by default. Not helpful to categorize users in to. I'm pretty sure that almost identical categories have been previously deleted, if so this is probably speedyable. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "not" category, and one which could include all Wikipedians. - jc37 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia is against vandalism, the category is irrelevant.Tellyaddict 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if we keep this, we could possbly have 47,343,913 users in that category! :) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → Doesn't help cooperation in any way. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete - As long as we keep the userbox, I'm fine. Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is a non-sequiter. No one should like vandalism. Acalamari 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who drive pre-1990 Mercedes-Benz cars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way too specific for collaboration. "Drivers of "traditional" (typical) Mercedes-Benz cars of the latter part of the 20th century which are not yet old enough to be considered vintage (1960s and onwards), and none of which were produced in the DaimlerChrysler era (i.e. before the 1990s)." This should be merged or deleted. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have been hacked on Habbo Hotel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not facilitate collaboration. We don't want to see a category like this popping up for every online game, do we? I don't recommend a merge to "Wikipedians who play Habbo Hotel" as since they have been hacked, they may not play the game anymore. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was leaning towards merge to "Wikipedians who use Habbo Hotel" per Wikipedians by website, but VD's last sentence makes a good point. - jc37 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The category is now empty. VegaDark 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → nom. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have visited all of the U.S. States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be more of an "accomplishment" category rather than something trying to support collaboration. No more useful to the encyclopedia than Category:Wikipedians who visit U.S. States, and hence should be upmerged. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedians' experiences may be valuable for collaborative purposes. - jc37 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge If you want to collaborate, go to the specific state or city page. I don't see how I, having been to Pennsylvania, would be of much help there anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 18:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per jc37. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use ViralSound[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article on ViralSound, so this category cannot be used to facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. The page "seems" to be some sort of music hosting site, but I really couldn't tell at first glance. - jc37 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if we allow this category, we'll end up having one for every site on the web! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → Cremepuff222's arguments and the nom. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 12:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who visited or plan to visit the United Nations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to categorize users in to where they "plan" to visit. If we cut that part out I still don't think this would be a useful category as named. I'd support a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations though, or delete. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the United Nations as nominator. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer to see this deleted, actually. I only suggested rename in the interest of not getting a no consensus, but it looks like there may be a consensus to delete after all. I still support rename if no consensus to delete though. VegaDark 07:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because they visited there, doesn't mean they have such an interest. And visiting the UN, or the US capitol building, or the Eiffel Tower, or The leaning tower of Pisa, or any other building, seems to be a bit much even for me : ) - jc37 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If someone makes a point of this, they probably are interested in UN topics. Specificity is better in this case, unlike, for example, people who've visited some state. Xiner (talk, email) 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is a flatout mockery, even after the rename. In context, the United Nations is considered an organization, not a landmark, unlike - for instance - Category:Wikipedians interested in the Hoover Dam.--WaltCip 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- what does it even mean? Visit every UN member? Visit the HQ building? —ptk✰fgs 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the last thing we need is one of these for every country in the world. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No one needs to know if you want to visit the United Nations or not. Acalamari 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that have a page on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons, it isn't helpful to know "who has a page" there. VegaDark 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 21[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the iron sheik[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE per creator. VegaDark 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan category for a single wrestler, which we have historically merged or deleted. Too specific to support collaboration. Also improper capitalization. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator, could support merge if someone finds an appropriate merge target. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not realise, but it is assumed that you support deletion as the nominator. Suriel1981 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize. But as you see below there are many occasions where I actually support merging/renaming and not deletion, and it is more clear what result I want if I state exactly what I want like this. You would be surprised how often people don't read nominations and assume it always up for deletion and say "keep" when it is actually up for renaming, even if the rename is blatantly obvious as being needed like a typo. I could see not doing this for delete noms but I do it by now out of habit. VegaDark 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too specific. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE per the nomination's reasons. If kept, Speedy Rename to correct incorrect caps. - jc37 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apply the camel clutch - much too specific. Metamagician3000 10:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, to specific for a category. Tellyaddict 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE as page creator. Agreed that it is too specific. I can easily tweak the userbox to reflect the change. My apologies also to VegaDark for myself being patronising, I see now that you've got a lot of experience in this field of Wikipedia. Suriel1981 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who Graduated from UD[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy merge. Xiner (talk, email) 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be upmerged to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Delaware, no need for a seperate subcategory for graduates. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Phantom Phans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fans of the F-4 Phantom II". Do we want to allow a "fan" category for every aircraft model ever developed? I say no, this is too specific for collaboration. This should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedians interested in aviation, categorizing people as to if they are "fans" of certain plane types is not useful. Even renaming it to "interested in the F-4 Phantom II" seems a bit too specific for collaboration. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I agree with the nom. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpMerge per nom. - jc37 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Again as mentioned by myself on an above discussion, too specific, speedy merge to the nominator suggestion category.Tellyaddict 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are Old Cliftonians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy rename per NThurston. Xiner (talk, email) 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clifton College per generally accepted naming convetions. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom & lots and lots of precedent. Can't we just make this a criteria for speedy rename? --NThurston 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like to watch new episodes of South Park[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like South Park

Needs to be merged to Category:Wikipedians who like South Park, as this is more or less reduandant. We don't need to create a seperate category for people who only like the new episodes. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NASCAR driver categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 12:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to see one of these for every auto racer, do we? Too specific to support collaboration. These should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedian auto racing fans. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge all as nominator. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom. I don't think this is any different than liking a musician. - jc37 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I think a lot of the wikipedians by musician categories are also too specific for collaboration. However, musicians release albums and join bands, each of which (in addition to the musician themselves) can be collaborated on, so that would at least be more than 1 article that people in wikipedians by musician categories can collaborate on. There is only 1 article that members of these categories can be expected to collaborate on, which brings me to the "Do we want a collaboration category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles?" argument. VegaDark 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your final question: No, but I don't believe we are. User categories about individuals (such as rembrandt, kant, dickens, michael jackson, hulk hogan, paris hilton, etc.) would seem to be no different than user cats about some record album, some TV show, some auto, some software type, some weapon type, some ship, or whatever. "I see that you're interested in Paris Hilton, would you also be interested in helping with the article on Nicole Ritchie?" etc etc etc. The other way to answer your question is "yes, of course we want collaborative categories which encompass all of Wikipedia's articles. Some may be merged together, some may be subcategorised, but, sure, why not? After all: Wikipedia is not paper/m:Wiki is not paper, and Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance." As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think I've mentioned previously why it doesn't apply well to CfD. - jc37 08:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These parallel the fans of sports teams, and seem like good opportunities for collaboration.--Mike Selinker 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between these and sports fan categories is that these can only be used to facilitate collaboration on a single article, whereas sports fan categories generally have more than 1 to collaborate on. What articles, other than Carl Edwards, would people in Category:Wikipedian Carl Edwards fans be expected to collaborate on that they wouldn't be expected to collaborate on if they were in Category:Wikipedian auto racing fans? And if the answer is none, do you then support a category for each of Wikipedia's 1.7 million articles? VegaDark 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play the UK Habbo Hotel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who play Habbo Hotel.--Mike Selinker 14:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Habbo Hotel, there are 29 countries with their own version of this game. There is no need to specify the country in the title. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, by "own version" I mean "own server hosted for nationals of that country"; as far as I know the game content is the same other than language differences. So I don't think 29 different categories would be appropriate. Also, there aren't (and I doubt there ever will be *crosses fingers*) articles on each of the 29 versions, only on the game in general. VegaDark 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops : ) - When you said "their own version", I took that to mean 29 similar but different versions of software. If the software is essentially the same (though I suppose with internal variance - settings set by the server host, for example) then I would have to agree with the nom : ) - jc37 09:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who watch a lot of TV[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians interested in television and provides no more collaborative value than its parent category does. This should be upmerged, there is no more benefit to categorizing users by if they "watch a lot of tv" than simply categorizing people as being interested in television. If someone wants to make the argument that being "interested in television" focuses on the actual hardware and differnet television models and such, then I could possibly see this being renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in television shows, but I'd still prefer an upmerge. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge as nominator, or rename per above if no consensus to merge. VegaDark 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Something like watching a lot of TV can be mentioned in the user page without the need of a category. This category should be removed or at least the name of the category should change to "Category: TV fans" or similar. Amlder20 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Amlder20. Xiner (talk, email) 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per other similar noms regarding "interested in", one can be interested in something without having experienced that something. For example, there is a difference between a sports historian or commentator, and someone who plays sports. That said, "a lot of" is subjective and should be removed from the category name. That leaves us with: "Wikipedians who watch television". While I strongly feel that this is a valid subcat (the same way that a CVG player category is a valid subcat of those einterested in CVG per previous discussions), I think that this category could possibly comprise all Wikipedians. - jc37 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge per my comments above. - jc37 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be more than happy with a delete instead of merge, as consensus looks to be leaning towards. VegaDark 20:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep What I don't see is the utility of a category for WPedians who are interested in TV, because it seems all too obvious that most are. Those who want to distinguish themselves as true addicts will presumably want to work on the relevant articles, so it's even useful.DGG 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 20[edit]

Category:Unofficial Wikipedian categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - Original author requested deletion below. VegaDark 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These Wikipedian categories are associated with userboxes from userspace (or with no userbox at all), and are not all part of the Wikipedia category hierarchy because userspace userboxes appear to be officially "discouraged" - This seems to be completely made up and has no basis for its claims. There is no distinction between unofficial and official wikipedian categories, and a userbox certainly doesn't dictate if an associated category is "official". This is pure nonsense. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → The nomination, like nearly always with VegaDark, has stated everything that I would have said. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as category creator. I would like to apologise, here and now, for trying to document something before researching it properly. I got it wrong. It seems that Jimbo Wales has spoken out to discourage potentially controversial and divisive userboxes (such as political or religious ones), and hence Userbox Migration occurred (a systematic migration to userspace), but categories associated to such userboxes can still appear in the main wikipedian category tree. A slightly odd situation, but that's how it currently stands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenrd (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Thank you for clarifying, yes it is an odd situation since there is no userspace equivelant that we can move user categories to. VegaDark 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians using Menubox Service[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 10:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be another category listing people who use a specific template so the creator can see who is using their work. "What links here" does the same thing, we have historically deleted such categories as not facilitating collaboration. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → The nomination, like nearly always with VegaDark, has stated everything that I would have said. Trash it! Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have attended a WCA event[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of events that take place every day. We don't need to categorize users as to which events they attended. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → The nomination, like nearly always with VegaDark, has stated everything that I would have said. "I have attended to my birthday"... does it make me notable? Can I have a category like "Wikipedians who have attended to Snowolf's Birthday"? Come on... Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rename a bit small with not many entries but this is not like your birthday this is an official competition im fed up of this anti-speedcuberism on wikipedia Thatperson 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think that this is comparable to your birthday, since I presume we wouldn't have an article on your birthday : ) - However, (I presume) we also don't have categories for those who have attended Disneyland, the Superbowl, etc. - jc37 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can i rename the article 'wikipedians who have participated in a wca event' because thats who it was intended for, (i presume) the people who have played in the superbowl are in a category (correct me if im wrong here) i didnt mean watch a wca event i meant actually been involved in the competition Thatperson 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me modify my nomination statement a little to respond to your proposition: There are thousands of events that take place every day. We don't need to categorize users as to which events they attended participated in. In other words, I oppose a rename. VegaDark 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with starting to categorise by participants, is technically, the audience "participates" as well. But even if we disinclude the audience, how do we define who was involved? And would it be helpful to group the lighting guys with the wrestlers with the producers, with the.. etc? See also Category:Notable Wikipedians. - jc37 09:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like the Matterhorn at Disneyland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per original author supporting deletion below. VegaDark 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"People who have ridden or would like to ride the Matterhorn at Disneyland" - Sorry, we don't need to categorize this. A userbox is more than enough, a category is of no use to Wikipedia. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who attend or attended St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy rename. Xiner (talk, email) 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Paul's School (Concord, New Hampshire) per generally accepted naming convetions. Speedy rename? VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who owns/likes De Loreans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. If, sometime in the future Category:Wikipedians interested in automobiles may be created, then subcategories by type of auto may be part of a subcat system and justify a single user category. - jc37 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly named, and I think this is too specific to support collaboration, as seen by there only being a single user in this category since creation. Users categorized by interest in car models would only be able to collaborate on a single article each, which is too specific since if we allowed a category to be created to collaborate on each individual article, that would mean nearly 1.7 million user categories. There are hundreds of car models out there, and if this is kept we would have to allow a category for every one of them. If no consensus to delete, I think we can all agree this needs to be renamed. Maybe Category:Wikipedians interested in De Loreans? VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → The nomination, like nearly always with VegaDark, has stated everything that I would have said. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single transferrable vote - Rename/delete - I think DeLoreans are notable enough to have UCFDs on them. Too bad that was all they made.--WaltCip 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I vaguely recall that previous discussions have suggested that "owns" isn't useful in a category name. As for the category itself, I don't see how this is different than the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in toys. However, since it's so small, I wouldn't oppose a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in automobiles. (I was surprised to find that it didn't exist.) - jc37 09:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play Final Fantasy XII[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I also looked ahead to the FFXI category and merged that template to the FF category.--Mike Selinker 02:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category needs to be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Final Fantasy, which has the description of "Wikipedians who play (any part of) the Final Fantasy computer and video game series". Having a category for each game in the series would be way too specific for collaboration. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → A version of a game is really to specific to facilitate collaboration. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin contacted for this, I really do not care what happens. This was Bobabobabo clean up.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AquafireGal[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category made specifically for one Wikipedian's userspace pages. Are we prepared to allow such a category for each of Wikipedia's 3,893,384 users? I think not. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cat for userspace. bibliomaniac15 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a "user category" does not mean a "USER" category. I think we ought to be prepared for a "but it's harmless..." vote.--WaltCip 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual users should not have categories.Dugwiki 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a useless piece. If it were only broadened into a more general category, not being just one user, it would be alright. 01kkk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I bet that AquafireGal will fing out about this. Make it quick.)[reply]
  • Delete, and someone tell the user about Special:Prefixindex. —ptk✰fgs 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 08:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 19[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are golf players[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play golf. - jc37 11:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play golf
Rationale: Consistent with convention at Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports and more grammatically correct. --NThurston 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename Uncontroversial. Xiner (talk, email) 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'd like everything in Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports to be renamed to "Wikipedians interested in" naming conventions eventually, since Wikipedia shouldn't care who plays what sport, we should only care about who is willing to collaborate on articles relating to that sport. That needs to be done in a group nom, however, so in the interest of not generating a no consensus I'll agree to this rename as it is better than what we currently have. VegaDark 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If that is set as the standard, then nearly all the Wikipedian categories would be renamed to a "interested in" format. I don't think that that is necessarily of benefit. For one thing, it leads us to a path of vagueness. If one is "interested in" Michael Jackson, does that mean that person is knowledgable about the art of the person or the person's history? (An important distinction.) Also keep in mind the recent controversies and resultant discussions about "expert" Wikipedians (by User:Jimbo Wales, among others). Noting that specific knowledge or experience in a topic is not necessarily considered WP:OR, but is welcomed by the community. - jc37 11:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

SUNY Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all.--Mike Selinker 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

Proposal: Establish a convention for the various SUNY institutions that:

  • Avoids abbreviations
  • Reflects generally accepted names (per article names, listed here)
  • Provides guidance for future categories. --NThurston 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Current names are not accurate. Xiner (talk, email) 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. VegaDark 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American football[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename:

IMO, this needs an overhaul. Referring to it as the "National Football League" could be considered centric, especially since these are only "national" teams. There's also really no need for these categories either; the projects alone serve their collaborative purposes, so merging them into one single category through precedence wouldn't be out of the question.--WaltCip 13:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert in american football, but I think that there is a difference between various football leagues. (See also: List of leagues of American football.) I also don't think that we should disallow a user category due to the existance of a WikiProject. The two may not be as duplicative as one may think. And finally, I don't think we should merge the subcategories. This would be like merging Category:United States House of Representatives and Category:United States Senate to Category:Legislative branch of the United States government or even at least to Category:United States Congress. Or from another perspective, the football clubs are individual clubs with their own ownership. This isn't comparable to the recent merging of "the Wikipedians who like Naruto subcats", for example. - jc37 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep status quo. People can and should be allowed to identify their allegiance to a particular team; I've done that on my own userpage. YechielMan 16:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on" format (i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on Chicago Bears related topics), if no consensus for this, keep as is. These can actually be useful, as there are hundreds of articles that people in these categories can collaborate on. See Category:Chicago Bears. However, knowing if someone is a "fan" of these teams is not helpful at all. I'm a fan of some teams myself, but I don't have any interest in collaborating on articles relating to them at this time, which is what user categories should be used for. As named, these categories will attract people who are not interested in collaborating on articles related to them, which is unhelpful. I say do this for all other sports team fan categories as well. VegaDark 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By that standard, all listeners of music and likers of television shows, etc would be merged/deleted as well, for the exact same reasons. I don't think that a large non-specific category is as helpful as a well-organised set of sub-categories. - jc37 11:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By that standard, all listeners of music and likers of television shows, etc would be merged/deleted as well, for the exact same reasons." - Agreed, I wholeheartedly support renaming all of those categories. Wikipedian shouldn't care about who listens to a band or who likes what TV show, we should care about who is willing to collaborate on topics related to those bands and TV shows. VegaDark 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then all the Wikipedian by location cats would be renamed as well. That said, I just don't see the value of changing all Wikipedian categories to "Wikipedians interested in...". I think we should all be able to presume that those who listen, watch, play, are from, etc are also interested in such topics. (In fact some of such categories are subcats of "interested in" categories.) One of the strengths of the category system is the ability to subcategorise large unicats into more specific sub-categories. Having a few big categories rather than several smaller, specific subcats seems to be a poor use of the category system. - jc37 10:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By location" usercats provide basic demographic info that tells you at a glance whether someone is likely to be able to contribute to certain topics. This kind of sports allegiance usercats do nothing but turn userpages into Myspace variants. Xiner (talk, email) 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By location" usercats provide basic demographic info that tells you at a glance whether someone is likely to be able to contribute to certain topics. - So do the other cats I mentioned (Who listen, play, watch, etc). We shouldn't "prefer" one type of interest over another. - jc37 09:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into some supercat. WP:NOT myspace or a social ring. Xiner (talk, email) 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but keep all Fans are usually particularly interested in a particular team. DGG 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to contribute to an article on the Jets, they can do it on the article's talk page. If they want to know about a player, they can ask on that player's talk page, on the team's, or at the reference desk. Can someone offer an example of where this type of usercat is useful? Xiner (talk, email) 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Keeping a specific heirarchy allows users to find others who can write about those things. Making it more general removes taht utility.--Mike Selinker 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 18[edit]

More 0-level cats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The templates have been modified, and these usercats were thus orphaned prior to deletion. Xiner (talk, email) 15:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

A couple more that have popped up since the mass nomination. Should these be speedyable now? We are going to have to keep on our toes to catch any of these cropping up in the future until people realize all 0-level categories have been delted. VegaDark 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added two more. VegaDark 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom., then -- but maybe the Wikipedia:Babel category page should be edited to mention the decision (which I support now that I know about it!) As it stands, the XX-0 section is still referenced there with no indication that they've been deprecated; those of us working on the oj- and oji- series of templates only found out when these were nominated for deletion. I'd change the category page myself, but I don't know the particulars of what's been decided. Chimakwa 02:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete I've added a note at Template:Bael, but haven't seen a response yet. To clarify, XX-0's in babel boxes are great; it's just that usercats of them are not useful. Xiner (talk, email) 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry we missed that. Speedy delete indeed. --Miskwito 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 15[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who are Wookieepedians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Wookieepedia. - jc37 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use Wookieepedia per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by website. VegaDark 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. VegaDark 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patricknoddy (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to show no useful purpose.Tellyaddict 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next, Wikipedians on Suite101? Xiner (talk, email) 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Wookieepedia is a very active wiki (hosted at Wikia) about Star Wars, I strongly suggest not to delete this cat but to rename as suggested by the nominator Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 22:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It's active, like Uncyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Active + Legitimate + Collaborative = User category.--WaltCip 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Native language programmer categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge to the level 4 version of the categories and then Delete. - jc37 10:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added:

You can't be a native speaker of computer programming languages. These are joke categories. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but don't forget to move the members into the non-joke version of the category when you do so. --tjstrf talk 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - pointless baggage. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I guess it would work for things such as User:MathBot, but it's a bit of a stretch.--WaltCip 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "non-N" categories. They're still speakers of the language, just not as much as they profess.--Mike Selinker
  • Merge/Delete all unless we have robot wikipedians. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelvant categories, not enough informarmation for someone unfamiliar with the topic.Tellyaddict 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if anyone can show me a country or other group of people that converses in a programming language I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from users_categories where category in (select category from nomination); —ptk✰fgs 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only who create 'em can be "native speaker" of 'em. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added a few more I originally missed, there are probably several more that I have yet to find as well. Also, if the closing admin wants to merge these all to the highest category that is fine with me. VegaDark 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless someone can make a convincing argument for, say, Wikipedia bots belonging? Hmm. Nah. Doc Sigma (wait, what?) 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians at McGill[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as duplicate. Xiner (talk, email) 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the correctly named Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: McGill University. Only one user, who is in both categories, so there is no point in merging. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant category, because it just seems to be a duplicate of the one mentioned by the nominator.Tellyaddict 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians born during the Truman administration[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as original author requested deletion below. VegaDark 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this? I say no. Redundant to Wikipedians by age categories, just harder to figure out. No benefit to encyclopedia. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part of the age template, User:Karlhahn/user born administration, which has the capability to create such a category for each president since McKinley if and when a user places the template on his or her user page (using a president's name as the arg). The template is new, and if this feature of it seems bothersome to a consensus of folks here, I will remove it. Feel free to contact me on this issue at my talk page. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unnecessary. The template is fine, but the category doesn't seem useful. We can let consensus decide to delete or not. VegaDark 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the category line from the template source. That should depopulate the category. BTW since publication of the template last night, one other user has used it, creating Category:Wikipedians born during the Clinton administration. The template change should depopulate that as well. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

More alma mater categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename and upmerge.--Mike Selinker 18:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming convention standards. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit count categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge both to Category:Wikipedians with over 15,000 edits (the nearest "by 5000" category). As the other "by 1000" categories which "could" be created by userbox have not, at yet, have been created (people are not currently using those userboxes), I think they can be "deleted" (removed from userbox inclusion) at least as empty. - jc37 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in Category:Wikipedians by number of edits, you will see that the categories are grouped in multiples of 5,000 edits-except for these two. No reason for these, if allowed that would mean that any multiple of 1,000 would be allowed, which would be far too many and wouldn't be helpful at all. I also wouldn't be opposed to deleting every other subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by number of edits, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as nominator. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - nom makes good points, increments of 5,000 sounds fine. Smee 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedians with over 17,000 edits has been speedy deleted as a CSD G7. I also say delete the other one as unneeded. Daniel Bryant 08:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well this was interesting. There are actually userboxes which populate categories for more than just these two. I suggest we let this nom go the full length, and if successful, remove the category inclusions from all the "by 1000" userboxes. "By 5000" for those over 10,000 should be enough. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, I do not think we need these categories, the other edit count categories are OK but these are to small, possible merge into one category.Tellyaddict 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge several count categories, as proposed by Jc37. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I look forward to that "other day" when VegaDark nominates the whole lot of edit count userboxes for deletion. YechielMan 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LyricWiki contributors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use LyricWiki per nom. - jc37 10:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use LyricWiki per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by website. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians whose userpages are intentionally left blank[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a category for this? Leave it blank if you want, but we don't need to categorize the users. Nobody is going to go looking through this category to find people with blank userpages, as there would be no possible use to do so. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This category was a recreation of a category named "Purposely Blank Userpages" to which pages transcluding {{Blankuserpage}} were added. I don't mind whether or not the category is retained, but the editors of the template (before myself) may have some reason for its existence. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is possibly the most useless category ever created.--WaltCip 13:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By saying you're leaving your page blank, you contradict yourself. Xiner (talk, email) 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rub out per Xiner - Metamagician3000 10:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → Nomination; also I have to add that if somebody wants a blank userpage, he/he should also keep it without categories. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Crested Penguin 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a very clever category SatuSuro 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A joke? Yes. —Moondyne 13:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is a plain waste of space and memory. Amlder20 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikistress cats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same Wikistress level. I say delete both as worthless, but at least we should merge the two, I don't care where. VegaDark 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • From that it looks like anybody can just make up their own Wikistress level. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want to start seeing categories for every made up Wikistress level. That would be a potentially endless amount of categories if allowed. VegaDark 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User en-0[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's useful to know if a user knows little English, it is available as a Babel box. It doesn't seem useful to have a usercat - you'd want to look for others who do know the language.

  • Delete as nominator. Xiner (talk, email) 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At first I thought this might be useful, but the fact that a userbox will do the job and nobody is going to specifically go looking for users who can't speak English makes this seem unnecessary. VegaDark 21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, standard part of the babel system. (Notice all the interlanguage links?) --tjstrf talk 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but I'm also aware of all the 0-level usercats that've been deleted. English is no exception, even if this is en.wiki. Xiner (talk, email) 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tjstrf. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since this is the English Wikipedia, one would automatically assume a person is capable of using the English language. This userbox says "sorry, I don't speak English." Prevents some trouble. Ideally, it's used in tandem with another babel box so said user can be addressed in the language of their preference. See what I mean? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is arguing against the userboxes. But usercats are not used for informational purposes. Usercats are used to find other people of similar interests, background, etc. - and there's no reason for anyone to be looking for other people who can't speak English. Xiner (talk, email) 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see what you mean. This is to delete the category, not the userbox. The usebox is useful, as it means you can give the user some slack, but who would go looking in the category for such people? Delete. --Bduke 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it would be useful to categorize users by how little they know; this template should be deleted. Ral315 » 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't buy its specialness over the rest of the 0-levels.--Mike Selinker 13:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that the others above have expressed it sufficiently well. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they're either confusing usercats with userboxes/text on user pages, or they're saying this cat helps people find others who know another language. Xiner (talk, email) 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read the discussion above, especially the comments by Messed Rocker. - jc37 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, and I believe my comments since then have responded adequately to Messed's. Xiner (talk, email) 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it serves no useful purpose. Jon Harald Søby 01:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep → It is useful, indeed. We always assume that a user understands english, so... Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can say so with a userbox. There's no point in making a usercat out of it. Xiner (talk, email) 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone explain to me any benefits that categorizing users into such a category would have over users simply putting the userbox on their page? I will gladly support keeping if someone can explain any benefit we would have over simply using the userbox. User categories are to let users find people-Yet I can think of no circumstance when someone would need to seek out anyone who can't speak English. Knowing if someone doesn't speak English is very important, but a userbox can accomplish this without the category. Please tell me what we would no longer be able to do if this category were deleted. VegaDark 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is no different from the others, and the userbox is enough - no reason to have the category. Categories are not userboxes, they're not for decorating someone's page with. If they don't want the userbox, they can just say "en-0" somewhere on their userpage. --Random832 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A userbox is indeed enough.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to find these users by category. Identification with a userbox is enough. Mike Dillon 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - userbox is enough. Metamagician3000 10:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 14[edit]

Category:User en-any[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Category for those using the User en-any user box". Category seems to have been specifically created to categorize users with the userbox, a past precedent we have used for deletion. Serves no purpose for encyclopedia building that I can see. VegaDark 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator- this category is not supposed to serve a purpose within the encyclopedia pages but as a userspace category. Is there another place it can be moved to so as to be more acceptably placed?
The main purpose, is so that any user looking at the userbox can see who else agrees with their views, if for whatever reason they wish to discuss them. Bobbacon 06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Bobbacon, "what links here" does what you ask provided users don't subst.) --kingboyk 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → nomination —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowolf (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like the new DST time[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a category as it does not facilitate collaboration. I like lots of things, but I don't need to make a category for every one of them. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator - irrelevant category.Tellyaddict 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Somehow I don't think we should categorise by what recently passed laws we like. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → nomination Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Web Designers and Category:Wikipedian Web Developer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename both to Category:Wikipedian web developers and Category:Wikipedian web designers per revised nomination. - jc37 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories should be merged to a new title that has proper capitalization. No opinion on what the name should be. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Rename both to Category:Wikipedian web developers and Category:Wikipedian web designers. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but don't merge together. It needs to be renamed obviously, but web design and web developing is not the same thing. From the web design page: "Web design is in contrast with web development, which includes web server configuration, writing web applications and server security." bibliomaniac15 05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, good point. I was under the assumption they were the same thing. In that case, just rename both per above. VegaDark 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Bibliomaniac15 and VegaDark. --Webkami 11:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge together Merge the two categories together, they are too similar to be different categories.Tellyaddict 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? So computer software is the exact same as computer hardware, then?--WaltCip 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate and Speedy Rename per nom. There is a distinct difference between the two. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Digital Spy Forums[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Digital Spy - jc37 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to categorize users by what internet forums they visit. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian 4chan users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - Original author already merged themself and category is now empty. VegaDark 08:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians who use 4chan, needs to be merged to that. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but maybe merge 'wikipedians who use 4chan' into 'wikipedian 4chan users' as it sounds a little bit better...Ancientanubis 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedians who use xyz" is the standard naming convention for all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by website. I wouldn't necessarly be opposed to changing that convention if it were proposed in a group nom, however. VegaDark 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as creator of Category:Wikipedian 4chan users --Doc aberdeen 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No actual users in the category, because of this is nots relevant.Tellyaddict 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was one user at the time of nomination, now this is probably speedyable. VegaDark 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename per consistancy and nom. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that studied computer systems engineering[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedian systems engineers, per article Systems engineering, which has Systems Engineer as a redirect. I can't find an example with the adjective "computer" except on the userbox (which also links to Systems Engineer). - jc37 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category description says "These Wikipedians are Computer Systems Engineer". Lets put this in line with everything else in Category:Wikipedians by profession. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Wikipedian Computer system engineers as nominator. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nominator, its a small category anyway.Tellyaddict 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since the name of the general occupation is "Systems engineer", and this indicates someone who has this occupation in relation to computers and such, at first glance I would agree with the nom. However, I wonder if what is intended to be "Computer systems engineer" will instead be confused and be seen as "Computer systems engineer". - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like 666Satan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to which name - The discussion/debate at the article seems to still be ongoing. Feel free to renominate once that discussion has stabilised. One thing that has consensus is to have a space between the number and the word, so: Speedy Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like 666 Satan. - jc37 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-reading, there seems to be a suggestion to add the parenthetical (manga) after the title for clarity. So striking out rename for now until consensus is determined, to prevent multiple successive renames. - jc37 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article on 666Satan, but 666 Satan redirects to O-Parts Hunter. We should probably follow the lead of the redirect and rename the category to Category:Wikipedians who like O-Parts Hunter, and at least rename it to add a space. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like O-Parts Hunter as nominator. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the manga is called 666Satan, the us version is called o-part hunter, and it is not a good title so i used the origionalAncientanubis 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why the us changed the title to o-parts hunter, but 666 Satan is the title that most people know it as, and its the title that the author chose. Roselia92 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact of the matter is, we can't have both titles. That's why the article redirects to O-Parts Hunter. I don't care If both article and category use 666 Satan or O-Parts Hunter, but they do need to match for consistency. If you think 666 Satan should be the name of the article, that is fine with me, but I would support leaving the name as is (except for adding a space in between 666 and Satan in the title) only if the article was titled 666 Satan. VegaDark 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • well then i'll petition to have the name changed... and im sure i could give a convincing argument for the name change, if/when i do though(assuming you get your way with this rename) then i'd either have 2 change the format back 2 666Satan(instead of O-Part Hunter) and have 2 wait for it to be changed, so why not wait for me to propose a name change and wait on the decision on the fate of that... and on top of that, whats the big deal of arguing over weither or not it's 666Satan or o-part hunter for a category....Ancientanubis 04:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way, this category has to be renamed, since there should be a space in between 666 and Satan, so we might as well get consensus for that at least with this nom. I urge you to bring the name change up soon, any categories that have to do with the subject of a redirect need to be changed to the redirect target for consistancy IMO. VegaDark 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • there is no space in the title of the manga, the title it's self is 666Satan, i mean, i woudn't spell Springfield 'spring field' just because if the fact that it's two actual words that are combined to create an entirely different one would i???Ancientanubis 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article constantly refers to it as "666 Satan", never once is it written as "666Satan" in the article. Also if that were the case, why is 666Satan not a redirect? If you are in fact right, then the article needs to be changed to reflect that. VegaDark 01:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could be seen as an offensive category, possible rename to nominator suggestion but it would be a little pointless anyway.Tellyaddict 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • if i were 2 agree to a rename it'd be something like "wikipdeians who like the manga 666Satan"... but i still stand by my belief that 666 and Satan should not be split, or that it should be changed to O-Part Hunter....Ancientanubis 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've known it as 666 Satan since its inception. If someone wishes to change it because they are offended by the title, then I can name over 3 dozen more Wikipedia articles that need to be deleted because of the title. If you wish to delve into article, then that number exponetially increases. The author of the creative work obviously wished it to be called 666 Satan. If VIZ Media (US Publisher of the Manga) wishes to use its license to change it to O-Parts Hunter to avoid "distaste" from the public and parental groups, then that is their prerogative. Deletion of this page is a rediculous statement and I firmly stand by it remaining as such. If it is subjected to a name change to conform to "Political Correctness", then so-be-it. But a deletion is rediculous. Evilgohan2 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My nomination of this has nothing to do with censorship. As I said above I am fine with keeping the title if the article was titled this way. I am concerned because this is like having a category called Category:Wikipedians who like Pocket Mosters, for people who like Pokemon. Sure, Pocket Mosters was the original name, but the English version is called Pokemon, which I am assuming is why the article is titled as such instead of Pocket Monsters, which is a redirect. What I want to know is, what happens when someone creates a category called Category:Wikipedians who like O-Part Hunter? Surely the two categories will be proposed to be merged, and odds are the result will be to merge it to the one that is the article title. So once again, if you think this should be 666 Satan, I recommend you try and get the article name changed. VegaDark 01:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A proposition is already being written up, I believe.

Evilgohan2 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Who cares? How does it help? --kingboyk 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • uhhh idk who cares, maybe gohan, me and rose.... i mean, its kinda like the difference between sayin that Anheuser-Busch(the company) is really called Budweiser... to some people it wouldnt really matter, but to someone like me who has alot of family who works for A-B, and me personally who plan on workin for A-B over the summer, would take offense to(in a way).... so just because you dont really care doesnt mean that other people dont care...Ancientanubis 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it may just be me, but I'd to see a bit of a better reason for a Delete than "Who cares..."

Evilgohan2 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. And don't rename. It is for fans of the manga, not some Satanic cult or anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SwordKirby537 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The translated version of the Japanese manga is 666 Satan while O Parts Hunter is an American version and this isn't the American Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. And if this is offensive to anyone then remember the Wiki policy, WP:Not.Sam ov the blue sand 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either name, and the other should be a category redirect. It would seem that according to this site and this site, at least, there is a space between the number and the word, though in the latter, the word comes before the number. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with proper spacing instated. Consensus on requested move was for 666 Satan. --tjstrf talk 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Childless 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category violation. We have Category:Father Wikipedians and Category:Mother Wikipedians, users can add themselves to those categories if they have a kid, we don't need to know if people don't have a kid. We also have Category:Childfree Wikipedians for these people to go to. VegaDark 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Crested Penguin 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since we have Father and Mother....,we should have this also. Childfree is not suitable as it express a strong POV in the matter.
  • Delete I agree, because their is a mother and father category its not relevant to have this.Tellyaddict 18:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as childless is not necessily childfree. It's not a "not" category as it's not "Wikipedians who do not have children". If this is a "not" category then so are mother and father categories because they're "Wikipedians who are not childless". — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I agree that childless does not mean childfree. I'm saying that people can move themselves to that category if they are against having children, but simply knowing someone doesn't have kids is not something that should be categorized. And I don't see any possibly logic that could conclude that this isn't a "not" category. It's not a "not" category as it's not "Wikipedians who do not have children". - Wha? How does that make sense? That's exactly what it means. By that logic if we add the "-less" suffix to any word it would not be a "not" category, because the creator managed to avoid the word "not" in the title. What's next, "Wikipedians who have 0 children" is not a "not" category? "Wikipedians who have the opposite of having children" is not a "not" category? This is no different than any other "not" category, it just uses different wording. VegaDark 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per AP above. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Can you explain the logic of how this isn't a "not" category? VegaDark 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should define what is meant by a "not" category, and the reason why we tend to disinclude them. If you have a category for all those who have apples, and a category for all those who don't have apples, you would (theoretically) have two categories which encompass all Wikipedians. This is essentially an extension of not having a category which includes all Wikipedians. And so we decided by consensus in the past that generally, if we have categories for "haves" and "have nots", the "not" categories should be deleted. However, there are and have been exceptions to that, with good reasons. And there have been some categories which have had the word not in their names which in truth were not "not" categories. (That was a fun sentence to clarify : ) - Anyway, as for the category in question, I think there is more to this category than just a head count (or lack thereof) if this was a category that was just about the lack of a head count, I might almost agree, but being childless (especially in cases where the would-be parents are unable as yet, or ever, to have children) has more to it than just the lack of a head count. That said, personally, I would like to see this category split into subcategories, such as those who don't want children yet (or ever) - childfree, those who are biologically unable to have children, those whose partner is unable to have children, those who are attempting to have children and have thus far been unsuccessful, etc. Each of those is different, those all are childless. (The article, childless, splits them into 3 sections, with childfree being a separate article. 4 such subcats would seem to make sense.) I hope this help clarify what I was agreeing with above. - jc37 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, "not" categories indicate exclusionary preferences, suggesting something isn't worth liking. This isn't like that. This indicates a state of being, and you can be childless and still want them. This seems okay, though I'd probably merge Childless and Childfree.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, the mother, father, and childless categories are highly irrelevant to the growth of the project. If this category passes, we'll end up having categories for every stage of the family: Wikipedian Uncles, Wikipedian Great-Grandparents... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Cremepuff222. The categories do not help collaboration in Wikipedia at all. — Pious7TalkContribs 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 12[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Starfleet Academy[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xiner (talk, email) 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Star Trek just as much as the next person, but this category is just a joke and is not needed. VegaDark 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Wouldn't be opposed to an upmerge either, but I am assuming most people in this category are already in Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek. VegaDark 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But it really makes you wonder: How many of them passed the Kobayashi Maru? bibliomaniac15 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is harmless, users like it, and has been clearly marked on its talk page for some time as material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any research or serious use. Also, it marks a user state of mind with the caveat or hope to attend Starfleet Academy. I might be inclined to agree with deletion if any of the alma mater categories had anything to do with writing encyclopedias -- but like 99% of user categories, they really don't. So why pick on this one? Live Long and Prosper! Category creator — Eoghanacht talk 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the category system is intended for serious use. Delete.--Mike Selinker 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VegaDark makes a good point; let's delete this one. Ral315 » 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While I understand the intention of the nom, this isn't better or worse than category:Rouge admins. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rouge admins is a Wikipedia ideology, however. VegaDark 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I didn't even realize rogue admins had the humor tag at the top. In that case, I will cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. VegaDark 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't think that that essay works well for category discussions. We do quite a bit of renaming "for consistancy", and while Consensus can change, we tend to go by precedent in category discussions. See WP:OCAT for an excellent example of that. And discussions tend to be a bit heavy-handed on re-creations. It's why I often may agree with a deletion of a category at the moment of its nomination, but suggest we shouldn't oppose it's recreation at a later date for "x" reasons. I tend to only suggest deleting a re-creation if it's obviously intentionally been done to go against recent community consensus. Hopefully, that clarifies : ) - jc37 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:United States: Hampshire College[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, original author requested deletion. VegaDark 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:United States: Hampshire College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy Delete. I mistakenly created this with the wrong name. Correct name cat already exists. --NThurston 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

U.S. Alma Mater Mergers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge all. VegaDark 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merging (Part I)

*From Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: City College of New York to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: CCNY

Nominator's Rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories exist. Using the naming convention employed by the populating templates. Or preferring the "space after colon" convention which is most often in the category. --NThurston 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Merging (Part II)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University

Nominator's Rationale: Merge, Duplicate categories exist. For these categories, the "from" category is currently empty. The "to" categories are generally populated by templates and following standard naming conventions. --NThurston 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why do you want to change Wikipedians by alma mater: City College of New York to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: CCNY? That seems to go against all the rest of these. I think we should de-expand the acronymns for schools, as you are doing with the ones below. Also, no opinion on changing Texas. It is much more well known as simlply University of Texas, not sure if we should change that one (but I don't necessarily oppose changing that one). Also, I disagree with changing Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: State University of New York at Buffalo to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University at Buffalo, I think a better idea would be to rename it to the actual school name of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Other than those 3, merge all per nom. Also, I'm going to speedy delete the ones that have been empty for more than 4 days. VegaDark 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
  • Good point on CCNY. I listed it this way because the template links to this one, but it would make more sense to reverse the merge and change the template.
  • University of Texas at Austin is the correct name and distinguishes it from the other schools in the University of Texas system (which also have cats). Mild preference on this, but could be convinced the other way round.
  • I support merging both cats into new cat: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. --NThurston 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other SUNY cats: We should also consider the other SUNY cats
I propose to use these names: State_University_of_New_York#Campuses as the category names. --NThurston 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should rename them all to either what the article on the school is titled, or perhaps all "SUNY x" as there seems to be so many of them and this looks to be the common name. VegaDark 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote article names, because SUNY x is apparently not universal. Article names are conveniently seen here. --NThurston 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I just noticed as well, the two schools above with "-" in their title we should probably make the category the same as the school name on Wikipedia, and it looks as if the two "from" categories both use the same dash as the article on the school does (I've already speedied one as empty before noticing, however that is easily reversable if consensus is to change it back to that). I'm not sure if the that is due to simply Wikipedia having the dash wrong for the article name though. VegaDark 19:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The longer dash is a problem because it's not on the keyboard, so it will perpetuate doubling up (and confusion). I prefer to use the short dash on the categories. That does raise the question about the main article, but nothing a redirect can't fix easily. --NThurston 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

U.S. Alma Mater Renaming[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 08:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Savannah State University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Savannah State University
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:City University of New York to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: City University of New York
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, These are only 2 sub-cats (out of 350) that don't follow the "space after colon" naming convention in this category.--NThurston 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good. -- Avi 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Speedy rename per nom. VegaDark 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of Pfeiffer University[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 08:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of Pfeiffer University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Pfeiffer University
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This is the only sub-cat (out of 350) that doesn't follow the "alma mater" naming convention.NThurston 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Speedy rename per nom. VegaDark 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by Politics I[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep all, rather overwhelmingly. Note that this result also endorses the re-creation of Category:Fascist Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the choice of nominations: This first round is of categories that are a "bare ideology" - that is, not showing support of a specific issue or membership in a specific national political party. This is because potential arguments for each type of political category are different, and may result in a different consensus forming for each type. I have omitted Category:Libertarian Wikipedians because I think there is a substantial argument for "sideways merging" it to Category:United States Libertarian Party Wikipedians (at least one userbox for it has a US statue of liberty icon) if the latter survives, and it should be handled separately. Any others that I've omitted, are simply because this is not an exhaustive list. --Random832 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment U.S. libertarians are usually not associated with the Libertarian Party, but has been shown to vote slightly Republican. This may have to do with the two-party system, but we don't need to go into that. In addition, why not merge Democratic, Republican, Conservative, and Socialist cats in the same manner? 151.202.74.135 13:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the Democratic and Republican category pages shows that to be a rather poor fit. --Random832 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possible option with some of these (maybe not these, i'm not sure, but some of the other political categories) would be to change them to "Wikipedians interested in..." on a case-by-case basis. --Random832 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are three previous deletion attempts listed on Category talk:Wikipedians by politics which resulted in keep or no concensus. Besides that, what is your actual reasoning for nominating these categories? You describe a process above but not the underlying justification. --StuffOfInterest 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel that "bare ideology" categories have any collaboration value. The ones for specific parties or issues might be different, though. --Random832 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: Not sure which three you're discussing, but the deletion review for Fascist Wikpedians revealed strong support for the notion of removing this kind of user category altogether. -Pete 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find all of these categories to be fine. There are many articles that connect to these, and though the users are declaring a bias, they also may be declaring expertise. A note on where this came from: The prompting for this nomination was the overturning of the deletion of Category:Fascist Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March. I initially supported the keeping of that category, and I'm fine with it existing now.--Mike Selinker 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: Do you really mean there are many articles connecting to these? There are many user pages. Your argument would equally support renaming these categories to "Wikipedians interested in..." which would reduce their disruptive nature, while inviting those of competing views to work toward consensus. -Pete 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think they're disruptive, even the Fascist one.--Mike Selinker 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Due to the deletion of the Facist Wikipedians category. that was deleted in part because of the "problem factor", i.e., people adding others to it. However... it's a real political ideology. we don't delete things for being a 'possible problem'. If these stay, all political categories like this need to stay if they are a valid and notable political ideology--do they have an article? Otherwise, delete all of these as Facist Wikipedians was a possibly devicive to at least one person. We need to stop all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nonsense... - Denny 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories named "Wikipedians interested in..." would have some collaboration value, but advertising one's ideology does not. Altercations like that associated with Category:Fascist Wikipedians are disruptive, and have no value to the encyclopedia or to the community; they should be avoided, but avoided in a way that does not single out specific ideologies. -Pete 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination stems from the deletion review of Category:Fascist Wikipedians. The deletion was narrowly overturned, but there was strong sentiment that all ideological categories should be treated the same, so in closing the discussion I left it to the editors to start a group nomination prior to listing Fascist Wikipedians separately. Prior (non-)consensus should not affect this discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename parent category and all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by politics to Category:Wikipedians by political interest and rename all subcategories to "Wikipedians interested in x" format for each political topic. The costs of declaring political stances on Wikipedia outweigh the benefits, however it is helpful to know if users are willing to help collaborate on articles relating to politics. VegaDark 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps people with no particular political affinity could also have thir own userbox? Cloveoil 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cloveoil, can you clarify your vote? It seems you may be confusing user boxes with categories. This proposal doesn't involve user boxes, and would not prevent users from posting them. -Pete 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, you are absolutely correct, please do accept my most humble apologies. I did mean to say category, rather than userboxes. Cloveoil 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Mike Selinker. I see no harm in it for people of certain political ideologies to identify themselves to other editors. - DNewhall 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that it's useless category cruft, not that it's "harmful" in any active way. And what's wrong with userboxes? This is for the categories only, not for deleting userboxes. --Random832 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep all. Don't discriminate and single out ones to delete like what was attemped for the Fascist category. Billy Ego 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you want a category, rather than just a userbox? --Random832 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I'd like to be able to easily find people with similar interests. Billy Ego 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclosure of bias is important in maintaining neutrality; it can be important to know where an editor is coming from when he edits in politically-oriented articles. Rogue 9 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • question for Rogue9: You make a good point, but are there situations where a user box or a note on the user page would be insufficient disclosure? I don't understand how making it a category, rather than a bit of text, helps in meeting your concern. -Pete 10:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I hope you'll understand if I answer that I'm more than slightly paranoid about relying on userboxes or statements on the userpage alone to serve this function, given that every single userbox that has anything to do with this has been deleted at least twice within my memory, usually summarily so, and only brought back after deletion review. I have also seen admins force users to edit their pages to remove political content. Given how malleable everything on here is, I should like to avoid starting yet another landslide deletion spree on everything political should it be decided that this needs to go. Rogue 9 03:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep all. It may be useful to those of a minority viewpoint to be able to keep in contact (through user cats) with others of a similar viewpoint, especially when their ideas are being misrepresented or discriminated against by the majority. Algabal 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don’t see anything wrong with letting editors show their personal beliefs. I am a conservative, but that has nothing to do with my edits as I totally agree with WP:NPOV for this project. I see no issue with the user categories in question. BTW, for what it is worth, some of the worst POV pushing I have seen in my time here came from users who never revealed their personal beliefs on their user page, but instead did it through their edits only. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep of both community and collaborative use. Merging them to political parties is NOT accurate, especially with US political parties which often aren't ANY coherent ideology except their party platform. There's a big difference between a 'liberitarian' and a member of the liberitarian party for instance. I see no good reason to delete. Wintermut3 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's useful for people to show their political beliefs Crested Penguin 07:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all there is a difference between being a WPedian of generally Republican tendencies and a member of that Party. This is particularly true of categories that may not pertain to any relevant political party in the area of nationality, like Communist. Some WPedians refer to themselves as anarchists and, at least in the US, there is not such a party. DGG 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per reasons already cited. --NThurston 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per above and the fact that if we are to get rid of categories where people have the independent right to attribute a political ideology to which they are affiliated/associated with then we might as well get rid of every other category that expresses the freedom to present one's interests and beliefs, views on the world - which is what I thought Wikipedia is all about, promoting the free circulation of information regardless of creed, ideology, gender etc... I simply see this as the usual opprtunism of the anti-Fascist bandwagon. The Fascist category was deleted for no apparent reason other than that the "idea" of Fascism would be seen as I quote "disruptive" and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is ridiculous, and it's also blatantly witch-hunting tactics. Fascism has as much a right to be up there as does Anarchism, many followers of the ideology and parties regardless if they are neo- or backbencher variations evidently provide the reality that this ideology is still in practice today. Piecraft 04:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for reasons previously cited. mirageinred 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - moving these to party-based categories, as some have suggested, would be unfair to those of us outside the US, to whom US party divisions do not necessarily apply. Further, although I recognise that some users advocate removing expressions of political bias from the Wikipedia community altogether, I don't see why. WP:NPOV is intended primarily for the article namespace; bias in editors is not in itself problematic, only in articles. So I don't see that there are any convincing arguments for deletion. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So make categories for your countries' political parties. The collaboration value of party categories is for articles about the party, its candidates, its structure, etc. I don't see such a value in ideology cateories. --Random832 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who never forget 5th of November to Category:Wikipedians who like V for Vendetta[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Xiner (talk, email) 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title comes from the comic book/movie's connection to Guy Fawkes Day.--Mike Selinker 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. VegaDark 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is. I may well detest the film, but I may also never forget 5th of November Cloveoil 13:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. But is it helpful to categorize users as to if they remember the 5th of November or not? No, which is why this should be renamed. VegaDark 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure. Is the category for Wikipedians who never forget 5th of November, or for Wikipedians who like V for Vendetta? Aye, there's the rub. Cloveoil 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No rub here. The userbox at the top of the category is very clearly from V for Vendetta.--Mike Selinker 08:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I think the icon is from the film of that name, and perhaps the quotes are too? (Sorry the last film I saw was Gremlins 2). I just want to be sure that the majority of the users of the userbox are in favour of it being renamed. After all, I wouldn't want anyone who was thinking of overthrowing the UK government being confused with a fan of a film. Cloveoil 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Cute ref, but user cats should be clear. Deiz talk 08:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's clear from the category description and userbox that puts people there that this is about the movie/comic V for Vendetta. — Pious7TalkContribs 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 11[edit]

Category:Sith Lords[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not.--Mike Selinker 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not even going to suggest a merger into Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars. This category is just simply absurd. Delete.--WaltCip 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would not have even knew what this category was about if Waltcip had not said above, their is no image as it has obviously been removed as its fair use. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated above. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could see this category being used in the main space, so i could support simply removing all of the user pages and adding in all the sith lord article pages, but other than that possibility this for sure needs to go. VegaDark 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since there can be only two, this category will always be under populated, else the rest of the category potentials would also be listed in Category:Deceased Wikipedians : ) - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per wise comment by VegaDark. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Careful now, you may well incur the wrath of all of these Sith Lord chaps. Cloveoil 16:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all above. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Howard County[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: upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. While not specifically suggested, it seems reasonable to upmerge rather than delete.--Mike Selinker 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost unused, this category was made a year ago by one user and still only contains that user. In addition, there are seven Howard Counties out there. The title of the category is unspecific while the description and its category clearly shows that it is intended for Howard County, Maryland. - Pious7 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it only has one user, then it's pretty much useless. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too narrow of a location to support collaboration, as seen by the fact there has only been one user in the category for over a year. If no consensus to delete, this needs to be renamed to specify the state in the title. Rename per my below comments.VegaDark 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Considering that we have city-based categories, I can't agree with the "too narrow" (See the various sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians by location). In addition it meets the "part of a category system" criteria for small categories (see WP:OCAT). But the "too vague" is well taken, and which specific county it is should be clarified. - jc37 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I believe many of the city categories are too narrow as well, at least the smaller cities. I think we should only allow city categories for cities over a certain population. VegaDark 18:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, looking at the county article I see that it actually had a good sized population. This still, however, needs to be renamed. Preferably Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on Howard County, Maryland related topics. VegaDark 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Population means nothing if only one person is using it and has been the only person for the past year using it. In my opinion, unused categories should be deleted. — Pious7TalkContribs 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would agree to deletion with the stipulation that this category is allowed to be recreated in the future if more than 1 person joins the category within 4 days of re-creation. You are right that categories with only one person are not helpful, but I think this category could be helpful in the future if populated. VegaDark 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 10[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who support advertising[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge. VegaDark 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising with only one user. VegaDark 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominator. VegaDark 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge - Single user, category description says it all. - jc37 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge - Looks like theres only one link left anyway. Phatom87 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge I agree, the actual category up for discussion is much shorter and clearer than the original one. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge per above, and as I stated before, with only one user in this category, pretty much useless. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The affected users will be listed on Wikipedia:Wikipedians by pet. Renomination for deletion. Xiner (talk, email) 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This takes Category:Wikipedians by pet a little too far in my opinion. If we are going to allow this then I don't want to think of everything else that could potentially be added to that category. Also, Wikipedia should only be concerned with who is willing to collaborate on cockroach related articles, we don't need to know who owns them or not. VegaDark 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in cockroaches as nominator, or delete. VegaDark 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wonder if one owns them, or if one is owned by them...  : ) - Joking aside, unless someone had a rather warped version of an ant farm, I don't see this as likely. I think it's more likely in reference to an infestation. As such, I also oppose renaming per nom. - jc37 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not just because I don't like cockroaches, but moreover because it is useless. How many people own cockroaches as pets, or vice-versa? Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cockroaches as pets are actually not uncommon- especially hissing cockroaches. No need to see this as fundamentally distinct from dogs or cats. I wouldn't however object to a group nomination of all the Wikipedian pet categories. JoshuaZ 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reliable source for that? There is nothing to indicate that on the page Cockroach. VegaDark 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there are 2 people who do identify as that, and the 2 eds. above might want to contact them about data for that article. DGG 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden of finding sources lies on those who wish to assert something is true, not on those who contest it. VegaDark 07:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squash - Metamagician3000 10:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cockroaches are valid pets, we shouldn't discriminate. -- Vision Thing -- 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then prove its validity!--WaltCip 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who admire Martin Luther King Jr.[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I do think it should be merged. Xiner (talk, email) 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been avoiding this one for a while since I know nominating this might be controversial, but I think this category sets a bad precedent to allow other "Wikipedians who admire xyz" categories. I can see Category:Wikipedians who admire George W. Bush or things much more controversial popping up if we allow this type of category. If we allow this does that mean we will allow a "Wikipedians who admire" category for all 150,000+ people who has a page on Wikipedia? The userbox for the category says "This user opposes racism and admires Martin Luther King", I think we should merge these all to Category:Wikipedians for racial equality. VegaDark 10:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians for racial equality as nominator. VegaDark 10:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My problem with deleting this is that technically it is no different that the "interested in" categories. This is just a version for biographical articles. Also, as was often stated in the '60s (including by some of his detractors), one could admire MLK without supporting his beliefs/issues/philosophies. - jc37 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, opposing merger as it stands - I don't think the merge is correct. People can admire Martin Luther King Jr., but not stand for racial equality. This may be the wrong type of categorization. I prefer it to be an "interested in" category, if anything.--WaltCip 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that is possible, but the userbox that populates this category specifically states that the user opposes racism, which by definition means they support racial equality. I'm still wary about making it an "interested" category as I don't want to see an "interested in" category for every person who has a page on wikipedia, but I don't deny that there are probably enough articles relating to MLK that could justify a category for collaboration. Ideally I'd like this category called Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on Martin Luther King Jr. topics but last time I proposed this sort of naming convention I could tell we weren't ready for that phase yet. VegaDark 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what I think of your proposed naming convention. It's a good description, but it's a bit verbose. How's it different from "Wikipedians interested in Martin Luther King Jr."? (which I would support as a rename for this cat) --Random832 14:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you can be interested in a topic without being willing to collaborate on that topic on Wikipedia, however I agree that renaming this to "Wikipedians interested in Martin Luther King Jr." would be a vast improvement over the current name. VegaDark 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question?Would I be permitted to have a category called Category:Wikipedians who admire Hitler ? Cloveoil 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hoping to not Godwin the debate, but yes, this is a valid question. This is one of the primary reasons I nominated this, I don't want to see this category popping up and then being justified because we have other "admire" categories and allowing one but not the other would be censorship, etc. I don't know about everyone else, but I want to avoid this scenerio before it has a chance to start by renaming this now. Category:Wikipedians interested in Martin Luther King Jr. would be an acceptable temporary solution, but I still don't like the precedent that sets to create an "interested in" category for every biography. VegaDark 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with VegaDark (above). Rename per the comment by him.Tellyaddict 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indie rock Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to indie rock.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for consistency with every other user music genre category.

  • Speedy Rename per consistancy and per talk page discussion. - jc37 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Crested Penguin 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 9[edit]

Category:Wikipedian atheists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, nothing to merge. VegaDark 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant because of Category:Atheist Wikipedians, which is much larger. I have already changed the userboxes pointing to this category, and now there is only one user in it, who is also in the other. J Milburn 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Because of the nominator suggestion and the fact that the original one is more full and the second is just an inappropriate duplicate. Aquasplash 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, would say merge but as you say the only person is already in both categories. VegaDark 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge/Delete - per above. - jc37 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half-serious comment that "atheist Wikipedians" and "Wikipedian atheists" could have different meanings. The former would mean "editors of Wikipedia who are atheist", and the latter would mean "editors of Wikipedia who do not believe there is a Wikipedia God" — Deniers of Jimbo? Or deniers of Rich Farmbrough?− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, since I presume both categories are for "Wikipedians who are atheist" my vote is for deletion − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inverse merge. Isn't the standard for "Wikipedian Xs", not the other way around? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjstrf (talk • contribs) 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Compromising merge. Merge all two into Category:Atheist Wikipedian atheists.--

WaltCip 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians against personal attacks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA is policy, so it is presumed that all Wikipedians are in this category by default and is thus not helpful to categorize users into. VegaDark 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom - See also Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2006#Category:Nice Wikipedians. The irony for me is that the new name is due to an edit I did of the userbox, removing the word "condemn". - jc37 10:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed, and all Wikipedians should be against personal attacks. ElinorD (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The userbox had already existed, all that I did was add the category for it to output from. This is a nice way to identify those who truly take a stand against this sort of behaviour. It is nice to think that "all Wikipedians are in this category by default and is thus not helpful to categorize users into.." - but the reality is, not all Wikipedians all the time act like they are in this category by default... Smee 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • COMMENT: - If this category gets deleted that's okay, I just wanted to note that at this time 523 users have the userbox on their userpages. Smee 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • And they will continue to have the userbox after this is deleted. This nomination is only for the category, not the userbox. VegaDark 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally redundant. And the person who created this is a... oh, wait a minute!! ;) --kingboyk 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (that was a joke btw)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as per nom. --Justanother 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. We are all have to contribute within policies, and NPA is a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Technically, all users who create accounts here should be against it because NPA is not questionable.Aquasplash 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed. All users should be against personal attacks. --Meno25 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all the above. - Denny 07:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If assuming good faith, Wikipedians should automatically fall into this category. If someone's not in this category, does that mean that they are for PAs? I think not. Delete. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. What's next, Wikipedians who support verifiability? —ptk✰fgs 00:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, if this passes, we'll end up having a category for every pillar of Wikipedia. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who love Applebee's[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want one of these for every restaraunt? If kept, sets precedent to do so. Knowing who loves a particular restaraunt is not useful information about a user to categorize on Wikipedia. Even if we renamed it to be Wikipedians interested in Applebee's, the category would only be able to facilitate collaboration on a single article, so it would not be useful. VegaDark 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We did have one of these for most restaurants, but they went in the group nom that deleted the food and beverage categories. That nomination is what is typically used as precedent here, but I think it "went too far" and possibly abused the ability to group nominations. For example, I think one would be hard-pressed to explain how Category:Wikipedians interested in McDonald's (or who eat at, or who love, or whatever) is not useful for collaboration. Or how about Pepsi or Coke? Brand names are quite different than a generic apple. I wonder if we're fairly assessing nominations by just quoting that discussion (such as when all of the alcoholic beverage categories have come up recently). - jc37 10:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously, it's healthy and worthwhile to allow a certain amount of non-encyclopaedic material in order to keep a fun atmosphere, but I can't see that we need categories for things like this. ElinorD (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom Darkest Hour 15:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per what I consider to be useful precedent :) --kingboyk 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't want a lot of these popping up.--Mike Selinker 17:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scope for a user category is way to small, only three actual users in it, not large enough to keep. Aquasplash 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not big enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flubeca (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Not useful information about a user to categorize on Wikipedia. This may leave Stuntman633 as being listed in only 240 user categories, but progress on Wikipedia requires some sacrifice. -- Jreferee 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 8[edit]

Abrahamic Theist Wikipedians, Dharmic Theist Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Abrahamic Theist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Dharmic Theist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. These categories did not include any individual users, just the categories for Christian Wikipedians, Muslim Wikipedians, Jewish Wikipedians, Hindu Wikipedians, etc. I found this categorization of categories problematic, particularly because it meant that Category:Wikipedians by religion did not display the categories for many of the major world religions. After discussing this with the category creator, I have now moved the categories for Wikipedians of particular religions back to Category:Wikipedians by religion. This leaves the Abrahamic and Dharmic Theist Wikipedian categories empty, and I believe they should be deleted now. Metropolitan90 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 7[edit]

High school alma mater cats[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename all. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are only some of the high school categories that need to be renamed, but it is a good start to see if we can get a consensus for this. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting all either, since I don't really think we need high school alma mater categories since they can only support collaboration on a single article each, unlike university alma mater categories. VegaDark 11:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all or delete as nominator. VegaDark 11:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. These don't bother me.--Mike Selinker 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support deleting all the HS categories, but I think that they should probably be put up together as a group nom. for just that purpose. - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm now thinking deletion may be a good idea. Perhaps the article talk pages could be used to list any alumni Wikipedians? Xiner (talk, email) 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename All, because eventually many of these will/should end up as sub-cats or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States which has a fairly well-defined naming convention. --NThurston 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who love Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Friedrich Nietzsche. This includes his writings, his views, and his life. Feel free to relist for deletion. Xiner (talk, email) 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Category name speaks for itself. Do we really want to allow one of these for every single person who has a page on Wikipedia? I think not. VegaDark 10:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential rename to "Wikipedians who follow [and/or agree with] the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" or create such a category. Personal philosophies are potentially useful colaborative starting points, I see no reason we couldn't have categories for many of the more noteworthy philosophical movements: "Relativist Wikipedians," "Objectivist Wikipedians," "Wikipedians interested in Kantian Ethics," and so on. Wintermut3 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I see with 'wikipedians interested in philosophy' is that there is such variation and such a wide range that a generic interest in philosophy is actually less useful for collaboration in my opinion. I wouldn't ask someone who's field and/or interest is in meta-ethics to help with an article on epistimology or political philosophy. Maybe it could be broken into wider fields, but the problem is that many philosophies are named for their progenator (IE kantian ethics and I. Kant, Cartesian Dualism and Rene Descartes), so you might have to run circles trying to come up with a name when you could just say, "interested in the philosophy of..." or somesuch. In the end I see it as being a lot like wikipedians by politics: in essence liberalism, conservatism, communism, capitolism, ect. are philosophies. I guess I don't see the harm in adding value-neutral categories for non-political philosophies, much as we do with religions and politics. I'm not opposed to anything you want to call it, or broadening the categories (what would you call Nietzsche's philosophy anyway? perhaps proto-objectivism?), though some are more clear-cut than this, because good old freddy was pretty much the only person that wrote extensively on that particulat philosophy of amoral athiest humanism. Wintermut3 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that actually defining something as a "philosophy" can tend to be controversial as well. And then we get into the miasmic mire of notability. (I'm not listing examples for reasons at WP:BEANS.) Perhaps we should sidestep this and try: Category:Wikipedians interested in the writings of X That way, we not only include the religious philosophies, the political philosophies, but even the literary philosophies, and more. This is an interesting discussion, and I look forward to more : ) - jc37 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have a winner there! namely because you're right, it allows people to express interest without expressing approval. I can say I'm 'interested' in the writings of Hobbes without saying I 'follow' Hobbesian philosophy. There is a distinct meaning there. And I agree in principle that 'interest' groups are better for colaborative purposes than 'follows' cats, namely because just because someone follows a philosophy doesn't mean they have any interest in the principles or writings of it, and vice/versa. Wintermut3 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the end point is to avoid "wikipedians interested in..." categories for every single biography we have. It's a sort of compromise between "wikipedia [name of philosophy here]" and cats for each person. I do believe, however, that sorting people by their interest in specific philosophers/philosophies is entirely ppropriate to encyclopedic ends. Wintermut3 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I fully support not having an "interested in" category for every biography, I don't know why I even suggested that. I still think that is a bit too specific for collaboration, but it is better than what we have currently. VegaDark 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God. :) — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did God say that? I don't recall any bibliographic record of him saying that...--WaltCip 14:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you haven't been listening to God enough! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listening that hard makes my head hurt.--WaltCip 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to close this discussion, as it's got too many unresolved issues. Is it possible that since Nietzsche is so specific a topic that people who are interested in the person can just contribute to the few relevant pages? That'd make a usercat unnecessary. Xiner (talk, email) 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But if I had to choose... Xiner (talk, email) 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Dolphin language categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xiner (talk, email) 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These users can speak dolphin". Joke categories that are not helpful to Wikipedia. A userbox is more than enough, we don't need to categorize users. VegaDark 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all So long, and thanks for all the fish. Xiner (talk, email) 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they serve no porpoise. Metamagician3000 08:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and props to Metamagician3000. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - According to the article, such a reference no longer exists, and so this should be an empty category. Oh wait, you meant dolphin? Delete, unless we get some marine biologists who might belong to such a group : ) - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sarcastic categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xiner (talk, email) 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need babel levels of sarcasm proficiency. Does not facilitate collaboration, does not help encyclopedia building in any way. A userbox is more than enough, we don't need to categorize users. VegaDark 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I think they can be speedied, too. Xiner (talk, email) 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we really need these. Not. Metamagician3000 08:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I might argue that a single such category might be useful as an aid to help communication with said persons (and thus help in collaboration), I think a userbox should be enough. - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

0-level categories, part 2 & 3[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete per precedent. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the 0-level categories, which there has been a consensus to delete below. There is a consensus to delete 0-level categories below so I am nominating some more. To repeat what I said earlier, All 0-level categories should be deleted because we should categorize users by what they know, not what they don't know. We have historically deleted 0-level categories before for this reason, and there are lots of language categories without 0-level categories already. These categories do not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia or community building in any way. These are essentially all "not" categories, which are of no use to Wikipedia. I Will nominate the rest within the next few days, taking so long to add these (and the tagging I will have to do) that this will have to be done in chunks. VegaDark 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC) - Anyone want to help me tag them all? VegaDark 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • note: I have removed en-au-0 and en-gb-0 from the list, due to substantial objection they should be listed separately. --Random832 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by susbstantial objection you mean 1 out of the 11 people that participated, then you would be right. It looks to me as if there is a consensus to delete those, and I am adding them back in. If the closing admin determines that a seperate nom would be better, we can that be decided by them. VegaDark 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No matter what ends up being decided, please keep in mind that Consensus isn't a head count. We've closed discussions as "no consensus" due to one objector before. - jc37 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it would be good practice to say that massive nominations like this are subject to "speedy split" of individual nominations based on any plausible argument why it's relevantly different from the rest, and "these are english, this is english wikipedia" qualifies (not enough to keep it, IMO, but enough to get it to be considered separately) --Random832 14:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if you really want to split them that's fine, but I think it will just end up with the same result. VegaDark 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator, with part 3 coming up soon. VegaDark 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. We not need these categories. I would fit into most of them. I do however understand C and Australian English-:) --Bduke 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization, as before. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) - 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and any others, except, while I personally think Category:user en-0 should be deleted, I suspect it should be discussed independently. --Random832 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except. I think en-0 should stay is it may well be useful to have a category for that purpose. I will grant that it would be odd indeed to encounter people on the EN-Wiki who didn't speak ANY English, but at the very least it deserves it's own consideration separate from the others (as Random832 seems to agree). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not nominate en-0, that should probably be discussed in its own nom. VegaDark 09:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Metamagician3000 08:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The userboxes saying these are harmless and potentially slightly useful, but categorizing such users is pointless because there aren't many cases in which finding people who don't speak a language is useful, and even if there were the what-links-here of the template would find most of the people with the userbox, and even the category doesn't find people who don't have the userbox. --ais523 11:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. If no objections, I may delete these at the same time as I delete the batch below, since most of them use a single template which, if I modify it, will empty the lot of them.--Mike Selinker 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only English On the english Wikipedia, it's important to know if a user is unable to contribute or communicate in english (why they'd have an account on en.wikipedia puzzles me, but still...). The other ones serve no purpose, I wouldn't ASSUME someone spoke Mandarin if they didn't have a level-0 babel cat. up. Wintermut3 19:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, by nominating the British version, you did. And since there is a distinct difference, I think that at least that one should be withdrawn as well. (I would suggest the same if there was an australian english cat, as well.) - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, a category for people who can't speak British English will not be any more helpful than a category of people who can't speak English in general. VegaDark 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I (obviously) disagree. There is more of a difference between american, british, canadian, australian, etc. varieties of english. And it's more than a few words like lift and lorry. And since Wikipedian policy is that articles can be of any variety of english, but that whatever variety it is must be consistant throughout the article, I think it would at least be rather useful for collaboration. This would seem to me to be just a bit important, since this rather directly affects the editing of the encyclopedia itself. I hope this clarifies why I feel that the distinction is necessary. - jc37 10:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the misunderstanding, I'm not sure of the merits of seperating out a fairly unified language by nationality, American and British english aren't like, say, Swiss and German German, which may or may not be mutually inteligible depending on the speaker, as an American you can automatically pretty much understand the gist of someone speaking in british english even if you don't understand what the heck a 'lift' is or where on a car the 'boot' is. A 0-level should be reserved for someone with NO comprehension. By the way, to the nominator: thanks for clearing that up for me, and excellent job cleaning up all these cluttergories. Wintermut3 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except official english varieties (such as american, british, australian, etc). - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to say this, but I don't think I can save those categories when I change the template. That is, the categories will still exist, but a whole bunch of users will be drained out of them. I think. Just something to be aware of.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. And if that empties any of them, then obviously speedy delete them. I just don't want this to be a precedent that might prevent recreation later. - jc37 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possble exception *Category:User en-L-0 - "This individual still maintains a shred of dignity in this insane world by adhering to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalisation." Seems to be worthy of its own consideration. DayKart 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I was going to suggest a rename, but while I think the userbox may be useful, I'm not certain that a category is useful in this case. On the other hand, such people would (should) be sought after for their text editing skills, so perhaps a rename is the right path after all? - jc37 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the ones for programming languages bas for example iexpresses an attitude aas well as a statment about knowledge; similarly for asm etc. DGG 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 5[edit]

Wikipedians who are VYRE Unify user categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who use VYRE Unify. Attempting to include the expected "speedy rename for consistancy". While the image software discussion below is interesting, I don't believe it applies to this specific software package. - jc37 10:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more opinions. This discussion is pretty wide ranging, and so more opinions would be good.--Mike Selinker 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These should be merged to the parent categoy of Category:Wikipedians who are VYRE Unify users, and then the parent category needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use VYRE Unify per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by software. We don't need proficiency categories for software use. Note that there is no article on VYRE Unify, and preferably I would like this deleted because of that, but I know some of you will be opposed to deletion since we have an article on VYRE, so I won't include that step in this nom since I'd rather see the above done than take the risk of nothing done due to no consensus (but I may nominate it in the future). VegaDark 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge all to parent cat and then rename it as nominator. VegaDark 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fine by me, though I would rather it wasn't deleted. I must write an article on Vyre Unify at some point (this is our fault for combining the company and the product) Jrphayes 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know. Some of these data software packages do suggest that there is a level of proficiency. For example, I highly doubt that the average user of MS:Office can put Access through its paces, or for that matter know or understand the full functionality of the parts comprising the whole. How many people actually create macros, for example? This comes back to the usefullness of the babel system for showing proficiency. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per my comments above, though I'd like further discussion. - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that there are different levels of proficiency with all software, or for almost anything for that matter. The question becomes, why do we need to know this on Wikipedia? The proficiency categories are useful for the language categories becuase knowing that can actually matter, for instance finding someone to translate a page entirely you would want an expert, for a line or two you could probably simply ask an intermediate speaker. However, for software, knowing if someone is an expert vs. intermediate at it does not matter, as the only purpose for the category should be to facilitate collaboration, which an expert and a novice can equally do. If we open up software for proficiency categories that is a potentially infinite amount of more categories that can be made, and will not help Wikipedia any more than if we had 1 category. This is why, in the far future, I intend on nominating all the instrument proficiency categories for merging as well. VegaDark 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The broken record says a guideline could even make nominations of this sort unnecessary. Xiner (talk, email) 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't oppose merging these, but I really don't want to see this used as a precedent for merging others, which may be more useful... - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Wikipedia is for collaborating on articles, not finding help for software apps. Xiner (talk, email) 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could this software be used in any way to build the encyclopedia? For example, something like Adobe Photoshop would warrant the use of such categories, as it is an invaluable tool for handling images. --- RockMFR 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even then, a "Wikipedians skilled in image manipulation" would be better than focusing on any one app. Xiner (talk, email) 14:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There is a difference between using different types of image software (or any grouping of like software type), just as there is a difference between what browser a wikipedian uses. - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buckfast drinking Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 07:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably fans of this obscure wine-based drink can show their allegiance on their user pages without requiring a category. Deiz talk 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge for yourselves Buckfast Tonic Wine Johnbod 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Xiner, if a user thinks they shouldn't belong in the cat after it is renamed they can remove themselves. VegaDark 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A delete is also fine by me, by the way. As long as the category ceases to exist I am happy with the result. VegaDark 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The merge does not make much sense. Wikipedians interested in wineries should join the Project and be in Category:WikiProject Wine participants. That shows they are willing to collaborate on wine articles. --Bduke 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge, not delete, would be appropriate in that case. Xiner (talk, email) 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a merge. They would have to joint the Project. --Bduke 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably they've some interest in wine articles. They can withdraw from the category at any time. Xiner (talk, email) 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after reading about Buckfast I'm not sure any self-respecting participant in the Wine Project would let a drop of this gutrot past their lips. Just delete. The Project is how people interesting in wine get together to participate. Drinkers of Buckfast are not a usefull group. --Bduke 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BDuke nails it. —ptk✰fgs 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Bduke's sage comments. -- Zanimum 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDuke. We should be able to speedy stuff like this. --kingboyk 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just put something on your userpage. Metamagician3000 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No different than any other food category.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should definatly be kept. Quality wine, quality catagory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.84.1 (talk • contribs)
    • Please note that you need to register before voting, among other things. Xiner (talk, email) 17:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a food/consumption category, and Oppose merger to "breweries", since that's not what's being described here. - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not only a food/drink category, but potentially divisive given the social stereotypes mentioned on the page for the product in question. Wintermut3 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open Directory Project editors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 15:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been created in error when added to {{Dmoz user}}. Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project pre-exists this category by quite a bit. Template has been changed to point to the latter, and this category is empty. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't stated if you would like a merge, a deletion or something else. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Userbox categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 10:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These users use userboxes". We don't need proficiency categories for userbox use. The N, 0, and 5 categories are particularly useless. It does not help Wikipedia to categorize users as to how good they are at using userboxes. Lets keep this constrained to userboxes, we don't need categories for this nonsense. VegaDark 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, these ones are totally useless. Appleworm 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as improper use of the Babel category. We also don't need another subdivision of "editcountitis".--WaltCip 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all → No joke category, ubxs are always enough for this kind of stuff. Happy editing. Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wowee zowee, delete these suckers! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Package them up and get rid of them all. Metamagician3000 08:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN User ubx-0, get rid of rest--Rayc 22:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - We already have at least one category which declares proficiancy in creating userboxes, I don't think we need these to declare proficiency in the ability to transclude (which, I presume, is what this category describes...). - jc37 12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to use up server space with these. ElinorD (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Foreign" language categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 10:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This user speaks foreign". These are joke categories. This apparently applies to any foreign language, and "foreign" varies depending on what country one is in. Does not help encyclopedia in any way to categorize users into this, userboxes are more than enough. VegaDark 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all → the userboxes are enough. Happy editing. Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all Obvious joke categories. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supprimez, löschen, suprima, уничтожьте, cancelli, schrap, Διαγράψτε − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exile all per nom. Metamagician3000 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Criteria for inclusion to be different depending on each person's opinion of "foreign". - jc37 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who want to be fighter pilots[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be President of the United States, myself. I also have lots of other wants. We don't need to make categories for them all. This does not facilitate collaboration, and creates precedent to create endless "I want x" categories if kept. VegaDark 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need for category like this. Appleworm 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is a good category, some users would like to become administrators in the future and their is an administrator hopefuls category, this is similar circumstances, however I think we should rename it to Category:Wikipedians who are aspiring fighter pilots.Tellyaddict 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The difference between administrators and fighter pilots is that you can actually become an administrator on Wikipedia.--WaltCip 17:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → I've already argued previously that everybody want to win at the casino, but apart from the fact that this never happen, we don't need such a category. It doesn't help collaboration in any way. Happy editing. Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or else create many more Category:Users who want to be x, where x is an element of {a firefighter, a policeman, a race car driver, an astronaut, a mountaineer, a bear fighter, a superhero, etc.} Bad idea? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is silly. -- Zanimum 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot down per nom. Metamagician3000 08:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only way I could "foresee" this staying is if it's a category of those who are currently "going to school"/"being educated" for the occupation in question. - jc37 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are happy that Futurama is back[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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure lots of people are happy about lots of various things happening or not happening. We don't need to make categories for each of them. Does not facilitate collaboration any more than parent category. This should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedians who like Futurama. VegaDark 09:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Madden games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who play Madden NFL games - jc37 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These should be merged and then the cat needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who play Madden NFL games per Madden NFL and the naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians who play video games. VegaDark 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who constantly use the Reference desk to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the reference desk. Consensus existed to do something, so I picked the most efficient rename option.--Mike Selinker 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for "constantly" in the title, also no need to categorize people who use it, so it should be renamed to "contribute". VegaDark 09:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But one cat can provide enough information about the frequence of appearance on RD. I mean, left for the users who belong to Category:Wikipedians who frequently contribute to the reference desk are the users who seldom contribute, no need for two cats exist at the same time. If the cat Category:Wikipedians who seldom contribute to the reference desk exists, we'll delete it to avoid over-categorization. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rename suggested by nominator sounds more appropriate for a user category.Tellyaddict 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as recommended by nominator. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians who ask questions on the Reference Desk. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need to categorize users who ask questions on the reference desk. Nobody is going to go looking through the category to find those people, but they could conceivably go looking through it to find someone to answer a question that was asked. VegaDark 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is much different than contributing to the reference desk. -- Zanimum 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contributing to the help desk is recorded in the edit history. This isn't a useful category in any way as far as I can see. --kingboyk 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not the same per Zanimum. Metamagician3000 08:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. The category description is "This category is for Wikipedians who contribute to the Wikipedia reference desk." So the nomination makes sense to me.--Mike Selinker 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it useful though Mike? --kingboyk 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added that description when I was tagging, since there was no category description before. Also, I am fine with a delete. VegaDark 19:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The userbox is enough for the purposes. As stated several times in the discussion above, there is a difference between using/utilising, and contributing. And since the userbox makes the intention of the category clear, I oppose renaming. (However, I don't oppose a category for the contributors to the Reference desk, if someone wishes to make one.) This category likely will duplicate (or be a smaller sub-set) the newbie category, and so if only on those grounds, it should probably be deleted. (While non-newbies are obviously welcome to use the desk, and some have, once one becomes experienced, they typically learn about the search function, and do the referencing themselves.) - jc37 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 3[edit]

Air guitar categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who play air guitar per other entertainment/game categories. I think we all agree that these should be merged, just that a few of us feel that we shouldn't start with these. However, since we agree that they should be merged, let's go ahead and merge them, and hopefully someone will nominate the rest of the babelised performance/music categories for discussion. - jc37 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the notion that there are different proficiencies at playing a fictional instrument is silly, I can't deny the fact that that there is a world championship for this thing so in that case I'll accept there are different proficiencies. However, I will assert that it does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize users into these proficiencies. I recommend merging all of the above categories to Category:Wikipedians interested in air guitar, or at minimum merging them all to the parent category of Category:Wikipedian air guitarists. It is of no use to Wikipedia to know who is an expert at playing the air guitar vs. someone who is a novice at it. VegaDark 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Category:Wikipedians interested in air guitar as nominator. VegaDark 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Wikipedians interested in air guitar. Clearly, the proficiency levels that do help us with real instruments (when we're looking for someone to record a freely-licensed performance) don't help here, because it's not a real instrument. I would not call this "the air guitar", personally, because it is not an instrument, but rather a form of dance. Thus, "Wikipedians interested in air guitar". —ptk✰fgs 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that does sound better, I'll modify the nom. And the use of real instrument category proficiencies hadn't occured to me, I was actually planning on nominating them for merging sometime down the road. I still might support merging them since nobody is going to go looking for a novice trumpet player to record something, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. VegaDark 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe there was a long discussion about the real instrument proficiency user cats here a while back, but I'll have to dig it up. —ptk✰fgs 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as suggested. Metamagician3000 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: best option. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. I got hammered when I nominated the instrument categories for de-Babelization. I don't feel comfortable merging the most fringe-worthy one. Nominate the guitar or piano categories, and I'll vote to merge those. But not this.--Mike Selinker 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure I follow. You would support merging the real instrument categories, but not this fictional one? I don't understand. VegaDark 03:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's nominating the most corner case for merging, creating a separate categorization for one instrument rather than making consistent categorization for all of them. Doesn't make sense to me.--Mike Selinker 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would agree if we considered this an instrument. But this is no more of an instrument category than Category: User armpit fart-1 would be an instrument, IMO. VegaDark 04:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge all I think we can merge these and do the same for all instruments. Xiner (talk, email) 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's.... not.... an instrument. Check the article: air guitar. —ptk✰fgs 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as joke categories. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Whether this is an instrument is beside the point. It's a performance art (of which there are contests and even an international championship). No different than playing an instrument, or dancing, or singing. I agree with MS above that we should discuss the use of the babel system for topics other than language, but in a separate nom. - jc37 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you would support proficiency categories for all performance arts? How would that help Wikipedia? What possible reason would someone have for looking for users in Category:User Salsa dance-2 for instance? VegaDark 10:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're asking two questions: Should Category:User Salsa dance (by some name) exist, and further, should it be broken up into the babel system. The answer to the first is yes, it should, the answer to the second is in my comment above. I think "that we should discuss the use of the babel system for topics other than language, but in a separate nom." - jc37 11:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I oppose proficiency categories for all performing arts, including music. I just don't think this one is where we should start.--Mike Selinker 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User uhm[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. VegaDark 20:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Hawaii at Manoa per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States. VegaDark 11:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nominator. Possibly speedy? VegaDark 11:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy RenameSauliH 14:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename Close it, VegaDark. It's your full-time job now. Xiner (talk, email) 14:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with FUK qualifications[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. I deleted the category, but the template construction makes it impossible to delete the link from the user's page, as far as I can tell.--Mike Selinker 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox that populates this category's description is: "This user has a Certain Delight in the Occaisional Employment of Crude Language". Does not facilitate collaboration, only one user. VegaDark 09:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, but @Fuck!@ DavidYork71 10:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who want Submarine Voyage back[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a category similar to this deleted a while back? Does not facilitate collaboration. I want lots of things, I don't need to make categories for every one of them.VegaDark 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure abouts its deletion a little while ago but the category is a bit small anyway and pointless compared to others.Tellyaddict 11:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about a "Wikipedians interested in past Disney attractions" or something like that? I suspect there are a few of these lying around. A merge may be appropriate if so. Xiner (talk, email) 14:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could support Category:Wikipedians interested in theme parks. VegaDark 20:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Me too. Xiner (talk, email) 01:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ditto. —ptk✰fgs 01:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Naw, just delete it. There's no indication these guys like all theme parks.--Mike Selinker 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed, but they can remove themselves if they think they no longer belong in the category. That is generally my philosophy on renames like this, at least. I don't have a preference for rename or delete as long as this category ends up not existing in the end. VegaDark 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Wikipedians who yearn for some past object, experience, or event". Personally I think the price of milk is too high, and I wish the prices were at least to what they were decades ago. If we start down this road, we'll duplicate the entire category system. I also oppose merging to "interested in theme parks" per MS above. - jc37 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Isle of Man[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. I edited the template that had resulted in the faulty wording. No one else voted even to rename. Xiner (talk, email) 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Rename to Category:Wikipedians from the Isle of Man per category description. Its parent cat should be changed to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality after renaming. Xiner (talk, email) 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not certain how you are making this distinction based on the category description. Could you clarify? - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedians who live in or are associated with Isle of Man." Same for the category below. Xiner (talk, email) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem to suggest that "in", not "from", should be the correct name in this case, just like quite a few other of the "in" categories. Is there any other reason that these are being singled out? We've talked about nominating all the "in" categories, but that's apparently not what you're suggesting here? - jc37 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, someone "associated with" a location doesn't mean they're in there. I thought that was pretty clear. Xiner (talk, email) 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valuable user category.Tellyaddict 11:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because unlike those categories, this one is clearly intended, as I explained above, for people who have left the place as well. Please note that I nominated it for a rename, not delete. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was avoiding this and the one below since, like Jc37, I didn't quite understand the nom. But, I've come up with a solution for both of these- Just change the category description! There are tons of categories where the description doesn't match the title. That is the person who added the description's problem, if it doesn't match then simply change it to accurately reflect the title (or change it to accurately reflect it is intended for collaboration on that topic). If the original creator intended something else, they are free to make a different category. VegaDark 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Silesia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. I edited the template that had resulted in the faulty wording, rendering this nomination useless. Xiner (talk, email) 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Silesia per category description. Its parent cat should be changed to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality after renaming. Xiner (talk, email) 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not certain how you are making this distinction based on the category description. Could you clarify? - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the re-name.Tellyaddict 11:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change category description, keep category title per above nom reasoning. VegaDark 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tau Beta Pi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename and purge.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tau Beta Pi to Category:Wikipedians in Tau Beta Pi

This cat contains two mainspace articles, but is also fed by the userbox {{User TBP}}. A previous incarnation that contained the same two articles was deleted here. The idea of a non-user cat for honor society members is currently being rejected here. Therefore I propose expelling the two mainspace members and renaming this to match Category:Wikipedians in Phi Beta Kappa. ×Meegs 08:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom, and remove mainspace articles and categories. VegaDark 09:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 14:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 1[edit]

0-level categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. I'm not sure how to delete the category of Cyrl-0, though. a68-0 will have to wait until we can change Template:User language-0, which we can do after the next group passes, I think..--Mike Selinker 04:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were only the top 10 on a long list of 0-level categories. I will nominate the rest if it looks like we will come to a consensus to delete these, I don't want to waste the time tagging them all if it is going to result in a no consensus. All 0-level categories should be deleted because we should categorize users by what they know, not what they don't know. We have historically deleted 0-level categories before for this reason, and there are lots of language categories without 0-level categories already. These categories do not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia or community building in any way. These are essentially all "not" categories, which are of no use to Wikipedia. VegaDark 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator, VegaDark 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Can we agree that these cats can be deleted without discussion? Xiner (talk, email) 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I just noticed that 3 of these were empty and I've speedied them as such. VegaDark 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This vote applies to every one of the 0-level categories (though I do think we should have discussion).--Mike Selinker 04:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of these templates are self explanatory but others aren't, this could warrant a speedy delete.Tellyaddict 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being an english speaking wikipedia the only 0 level that may be of any use would be en0 - for users that edit on en.wikipedia, but do not speak english. It is a hypothetical that there are actually editors like that - probably other language wikipedia users who have created an en account for some purpose. Otherwise delete them all.SauliH 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, that is the only 0-level cat I don't intend on nominating. VegaDark 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - "not" categories for users are ... er, not helpful. Metamagician3000 00:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not facilitate collaboration. I agree with SauliH that en-0 should remain, for users that maintain an account here for reasons other than contributing (such as those who contribute heavily to commons). —ptk✰fgs 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Wikipedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, so reverse the redirect (restoring to original state).--Mike Selinker 15:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor converted Category:Former Wikipedians into a {{category redirect}} to Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia and partially edited the corresponding userbox template. Should these categories be merged? I started implementing the redirect, but soon had second thoughts when I could find no consensus for it. So I have reversed the creation of the redirect, and I am now bringing it here for discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. It seems to me that a Former Wikipedian is not necessarily someone who has retired from editing, and it may be a useful distinction. One problem is that nobody who is in one of the categories is likely to be around to express a view! --RobertG ♬ talk 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a merge is agreed, the closing admin will need to edit {{User EX-WP}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the pattern of usage, it seems like Retired should go into Former, not the other way around. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No redirect, I'm inclined by Category:Former Wikipedians. In fact, I feel "former" or "retire from" are similar but the former one is shorter. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge We don't need two cats for this. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Former Wikipedians" could include people who died, so it doesn't necessarily mean they retired. I think both should be merged, but not to either of those names. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians who no longer edit Wikipedia and make the category description show that it includes people who left. retired, or whatever. VegaDark 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, since "Former" is more inclusive, it can integrate retirees into its mix. Xiner (talk, email) 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This category is a valuable part of wikipedia and its history, including previosu events and happenings which have put users off from editing, seems like a valuable area of wikipedia.Tellyaddict 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/March_2007&oldid=1088721253"