Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | User | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008)
< January 2008 March 2008 >

February 28

edit

Category:Chilean-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: double upmerge. Wizardman 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a redundant category, as both Category:Wikipedians in Chile and Category:American_Wikipedians already cover this. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Interior

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 Alaska WODUP (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in the Interior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This page is for Wikipedians from Fairbanks, the Tanana Valley, and elsewhere in the Interior region of Alaska." - Needs a rename to clarify what the category is for at minimum. However, this is a single user category, so my first choice would be to upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Alaska. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims

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 - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Sims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While the Sims probably has enough articles to collaborate on, this category is populated by a lone userbox page with no actual users. Additionally, the userbox text is "This user enjoys playing the Sims", so any users adding the userbox would be miscategorized. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food

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 - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in wild food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wild food has been deleted, so this category can not facilitate collaboration. Single-user category that has existed over a year. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup

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 - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians invited to the LA Meetup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single user category despite existing for nearly 3 years, does not help the encyclopedia to categorize those who are invited to particular wiki-meetups. VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity

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 Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history - jc37 02:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Antiquity to Category:Wikipedians interested in classical antiquity
Nominator's rationale: Antiquity is a disambiguation page, and the term may refer to classical antiquity or ancient history in general. Judging from the page description and userbox, the category seems to be oriented toward the former meaning. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 24

edit

Category:Kosovo independence supporters

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 - jc37 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Kosovo independence supporters to article Wikipedians who support Kosovo's independence
Nominator's rationale: Category meant for userboxes improperly named. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User nds-NL

edit

Category:User nds-NL-1

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. VegaDark (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User nds-NL
Category:User nds-NL-1
single user cat. It seems that the user has created this cat on several language Wikipedias (with it having been apparently deleted on one of them), though still being a single user cat in those places as well. If no consensus to delete, upmerge -1 to the parent. - jc37 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment on previous deletion rationale. My own experience of babel categories is that they are by far the most useful. Just to give an example: a question of notability about an Egyptian TV presenter might better be answered by someone with Arabic who is not on a TV-project, than by anybody particularly involved in TV projects. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User Torlak

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. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User Torlak - single user category, and one of a regional dialect. - jc37 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects

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. Although being a single-user category is a common reason for deletion (or merging), the fact that the category was created relatively recently and was created for a specifically collaborative purpose suggests that it may be appropriate to "give it time to grow". (I will not address the issue of how much value is inherent in a user category for a topic that is already covered by an active WikiProject, as there does not seem to be clear consensus on the issue -- similar questions have been raised in prior discussions, and my perception is based as much on the content of prior discussions as it is on this one.) Since the category's creator and sole member has expressed support for deletion if the category does not attract new members within a month of its creation, it might be best to revisit the issue in a few weeks, assuming no new arguments or ideas for renaming/reorganising are developed before then. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles (See bibliophile)
or
Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects to category:Wikipedians interested in book history (See History of the book)
or
Delete - single member category.
See also comments at Category talk:Wikipedians interested in books as objects - jc37 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that everybody who is willing to share their expertise will be going out of their way to contribute to talkpages. -Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to give it time to grow, I know from the first discussion on the depopulating of Wikipedians interested in books that there may be people out there that are interested in books themselves, not the contents. This could be the a category of people who would improve articles on such things as book binding, book publishing methods, book media, history of books, etc. Since Wikipedians interested in books was depopulated such a short time ago, and this category created in response to that, give it time to grow. I suggest that it be revisited in a few months. - LA @ 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    People who would improve articles on book binding, publishing methods, etc., etc., can and should be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Participants. There's no need for a category. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of wikiprojects is that they bring together those interested in systematically contributing to wikipedia in a particular field. I am already a member of two; more would rather overload me. Categories, in contrast, are a way of finding people with expertise in a particular field even if it is not the main area of their activity on wikipedia (at least, that's how I use them). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Paularblaster says, WikiProjects are just one of many ways we collaborate, and a full-on project is not always required. In fact, WP:PROJECT's guidelines even recommend topical collaboration outside of a WikiProject when that's all that is needed. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, there is an existing WikiProject. And even collaboration outside WikiProjects doesn't require categories. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing requires anything, but it helps. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • creator's comment. I recently created this category, with this name, to replace the now defunct "bibliophile" category which seems to have become an overpopulated catch-all for people interested in books in a variety of senses (also, incidentally, a problem with Wikiproject Books, which is more about literature than it is about books). The category is not intended exclusively for book historians, but also for those interested in book design, layout, bindings, etc. Hence neither "bibliophile" (which people take simply to mean "likes books") nor "book history" seemed entirely appropriate. The purpose is to provide a category for those willing to provide expertise in these areas even if their main contributions to wikipedia fall outside this field. I am myself an academic specializing in 16th and 17th-century print culture, but wikipedia is a hobby: my contributions are in areas that interest me more incidentally (and in any case it would be hard not to fall into OR, on top of which wikipedia is not a form of publication that looks good on an academic CV); nevertheless, I am perfectly happy to make my expertise available for anyone asking for it. This, I would have thought, is the reason for having categories as well as projects. If, in a month's time, nobody else has added themselves to the category then I would certainly be in favour of deletion. I should say, as the creator of this category, it would have been nice to receive notification of this discussion rather than stumble upon it - but CfD and AfD seem to have rather different etiquette. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above comment. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 23

edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

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 action, though a good discussion. This "nom" turned into an educational discussion and then a brainstorming discussion. Nothing wrong with that, imho. - jc37 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to reopen the discussion on the emptying of this category and making it a parent category. I was unaware of the original discussion until the category was "removed" from my user page. Emptying of this category does not seem to be a good idea, and this is why. If you look at that page, I put all possible categories that I would belong to on that page. (I haven't created them yet, since I am the only member.) That is a lot of categories which would get created in the place of this one. There will be others who are far more read that I am, so their pages could have even more categories than that. Do we really want that many new user categories springing up, or do we want to keep it nice and simple? - LA @ 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If that does not suit, would there be any problem with me creating a sign up page in the Wikipedia name space called Wikipedia:Wikipedians interested in books sign up so that categories could be created if there is enough interest in a genre, author, or series. - LA @ 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking over the list of cats you made, a couple things: most of the author ones would be valid categories, presuming that enough Wikipedians would be interested in being included. The individual books, not so much. Unless it's a book series, or in some way can help with collaborating on more than a couple articles, it's likely to be nominated for deletion. And several of the TV series novella tie-in cats would likely be nominated for merging to "Wikipedians interested in x TV series". (Wikipedians interested in Star Trek, for example). - jc37 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the category was depopulated was because it was far too broad for effective collaboration. I have an interest in books by Jonathan Kellerman, Stuart Woods and Dale Brown; my friend is enormously fond of the novels of Benito Pérez Galdós and Edith Wharton. Are you able and willing to collaborate on their works? (Galdós, in particular, needs some attention; very few of his works have articles in the English Wikipedia.) Additionally, some of the "categories" in your list are far too narrow for collaboration, or are duplicative; we don't need separate categories for Xanth and Piers Anthony, or for all of the varieties of the D&D and Star Trek universes; consolidating them and others like them will reduce your list by about half. Note that Category:Wikipedians who read science fiction already exists; it is a useful category. The "books" category is not useful as a collaborative tool in and of itself, but it is useful as an organizational category, with users sorted into smaller subcategories. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right that I wouldn't be able to collaborate on articles by those authors. The categories on my list however all have plenty of articles that can go with them. Piers Anthony does not equal Xanth. I have several of his series listed on that page; the Apprentice Adept series, the Bio of a Space Tyrant series, the Incarnations of Immortality series, and the Mode series. Also, there are hundreds of Star Trek books out there based on the various series (I think there are over a hundred for the original series alone), and then the technical manuals through the years. There are also probably hundreds of TSR RPG and White Wolf RPG based novels out there. The narrowing is needed. I saw that the scifi category was created, but a lot of genres are still missing. - LA @ 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for organization purposes--and if some people do think they fit in it best in a very general way. Nothing wrong with that, either. They may either have very broad tastes, or be very unsophisticated. DGG (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They could be also very well read, so well read that they would have a worse list of categories than I would if all of those every get created. - LA @ 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a parent category, keep depopulated of individual users per last discussion. If you wish to create a bunch of "books by series/genre" categories, that is your prerogative, but I would recommend you make sure the scope of the categories are not too narrow, and also that more people besides you will join the categories within a few days of creation (as we often delete single-user categories). VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of other notes: If this were AfD, this would be speedy closed. Debates should not be re-opened like this so soon after closing (unless no consensus was reached, and even if that were the case this would be a bit soon), and therefore I support a speedy close. If you disagree with the last close you should go to WP:DRV. Additionally, I would support deleting all current "who read" categories, as "who read" certainly doesn't translate to "interested in collaborating on". I've read tons of books I have no interest in collaborating on, and like the nominator mentions, they have a category prepared for "all possible categories" that they could belong to. This isn't helpful to Wikipedia in the least unless you plan on actually collaborating through all those categories. I would support an "Interested in" naming convention by author (and perhaps by series, depending on the number of books in the series that such a category could support collaboration on), but "who read" includes too many people unlikely to collaborate that it makes it not useful (for instance, people who hated a book could theoretically add themselves to the category, simply because it applies to them, but obviously wouldn't want to collaborate on such articles). Some books are practically manditory reading in middle school/high school, so many such "who read" categories could be close to all-inclusive (Category:Wikipedians who read Shakespeare, for instance, which thankfully currently doesn't exist). Category:Wikipedians interested in Shakespeare, though? I'd definitely support such a category. VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The convention of "Wikipedians who read..." was established some time ago, and that convention is noted on the category page for Category:Wikipedians interested in books; while "Wikipedians interested in..." more clearly conveys the collaborative potential for the category, it would require a great deal of work to rename the currently named categories, and additionally runs the risk of miscategorizing editors who enjoyed a book but have no intention of contributing to its article. Changing the currently named categories is likely to anger many editors for very little practical gain, as the difference between "who have read" and "interested in" is not very broad. There is a potential solution to the problem, but that proposal didn't meet with anywhere near enough support to push it any farther. Horologium (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know about the next step of the process, since I had never used it before. The last time I put a user category up for discussion, there wasn't a separate section especially for user categories. I didn't know if there was a next step process in this area. If this discussion could be moved there without loss, I would do it. My question is, when were user categories so constricted that they are only for collaboration purposes? Are you saying that there are categories deleted just because they couldn't lead to collaboration, that there is a push to get rid of all community building categories? That is just plain sad to see. I like editing Wikipedia and seeing what a group of people can do to make the world a much more informed place, but I would also like to get to know those with whom I am editing. Sometimes the only way to do that is through little boxes and the categories they can create. - LA @ 09:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you recall (since it was some time ago), but I also was involved in the userbox (re-)organisation efforts. I strongly support community building, and feel that that can be a good, though indirect, way to help contribute and promote collaboration among Wikipedians. That said, in general, category space just shouldn't be used for that. After months (years) of discussions, it's clear that the category system (all categories, not just Wikipedian cats) should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. (Categories being navigational tools.) If there is something noteworthy to place in the article, place it in the article! If one wants to place a notice on their userpage, add some text, or a userbox, but don't use the category system for it. - jc37 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all its subcategories, as none of them helps users write an encyclopedia. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The addendum
edit

Would you support my suggestion in the addendum above? No one has mentioned it, so I feel the necessity to mention that it is there, but perhaps unread. - LA @ 08:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't support that, at least not in project space. For specific series or genres, a note dropped in the talk page for the main page of the series or genre about the possibility of forming a user category should be sufficient to identify if there is enough interest. I'm not strongly opposed, though, and might be convinced to support your proposal, although I think it needs a different name that what you have proposed. Horologium (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is basically the reverse of what Wikipedia:User categories for discussion is usually used for which is the deletion of categories. The "sign up" page would be for discussing creating user categories for authors, genres, or series. As I said earlier in regard to the red linked categories on my books page, I am not going to create them until I know there are enough people to make them worth creating. I could add this categorization to the current book template with a cautionary note to suggest the creation of new categories on the "sign up" page. I could put it at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Wikipedians who read books subcategory suggestions or similar.
Here is what I would put on the top of the suggested page...
This project is for the incrimental creation of user categories that would fall under the Wikipedians interested in books parent category. It will help find categories which are in need of renaming or categorization under that category, and identify pan-media franchise categories which should be included here. Please discuss category name disputes on the talk page.
Do not hesitate to add your user page to a category which has yet to be created, which will cause a red link. That is acceptable until there are enough users who are in the category for it to be created. Please place your signature (~~~~) under each category which fits you.
Does that suit? - LA @ 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your addendum sounds like the sort of thing that might be handled as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, with such a page perhaps serving as a useful means of organizing specific task force|task forces, like the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld. It could be a very good idea to have such a sign-up, I would think, if it would attract interested editors into collaborating on articles, even if they don't form specialized task forces. I don't know if user categories are the best way of organizing such collaborations or not. The problem inherent in any Wikipedia sign-up procedure, of course, is that people don't unsign on becoming inactive and that many active editors who might participate never know the possibility exists. That difficulty is way beyond the scope of this discussion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moonriddengirl, I can name at least 20 different WikiProjects and task forces that deal with books in one way or another. The sane and organized creation of these subcategories is pan-project. Believe me, it needs to be on its own. - LA @ 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals as a place where you might get more focused feedback, but from your contribution page it seems you don't need me to point that out. :) I'll note that I was evidently slowly composing the above comment as you placed your note @14:33, because my comment was in reply to your note of 13:26. I will never understand how edit conflicts work...and don't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over

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 - That said, I'm going to list this on the /working page as a speedy rename to add the word "Wikipedian", per long convention. - jc37 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At minimum, this category needs a rename, since it is not categorizing user names, it is categorizing the users themselves. Additionally, however, I'm not entirely sure this category is useful at all. Users are automatically added to this category when Template:uw-username is added to their page. There is no indication what the requirements are for a user to legitimately "express concern" over a username, nor any indication that the category is actually ever used to find users to username block. The policy on usernames says to bring concerning usernames to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which I think is a much better solution than adding them to this category. Additionally, the category has become large and unwieldy due to users in the category who actually are blocked not being removed, so using the category to find people to block is a shot in the dark. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If all the "dealt with" users were out of the category, so only those who have had the template on their page for less than 5 days were listed, then it could indeed make the category managable and possibly useful. It would still need a rename, however. Do you oppose renaming? VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not firmly opposed to a rename, but I don't really see the need either. Note that there are several bots that use this category, including DusterBot (see above) and the HBC AIV helperbots who identify users in this category that are reported to UAA, in order to inform admins that discussion has been attempted. If consensus is that a rename is required, this should be checked with the bot owners to make sure that the rename does not break any bots. But then again, it seems that the rename is only for semantic reasons and I don't think it is really necessary. Is he back? (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 22

edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in radio

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. Wizardman 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note: This is a group nomination of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio and its subcategories. Detailed nomination rationales for the subcategories are offered below.
Nominator's rationale: This category is too vague to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration – indeed, it is too vague to be useful as anything other than a parent category. "Radio" can refer to the "medium of wireless communication" in general, specific radio technologies, the activity of radio broadcasting, specific radio broadcasts, radio frequencies, the electronic device, and a host of other things. Since there is no reason to expect that an interest in one implies an interest the others, the category effectively fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains.
  • Then you're just blind. This isn't something "in theory", it's something that actually happens on a daily bases. I've contacted other editors via such categories, and I've been contacted via similar categories. Facts would suggest that your generalization that all user cats are useless is wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angr. I'm interested in lots of things, watch many tv shows and listen to different radio shows, none of which I have an interest in writing about. --Kbdank71 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either as a parent category, or as a non-detailed interest category per DGG. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 days later... I don't whether this discussion is a difficult one to close or whether it's just escaped notice for such a long time. In any case, in the hope of restarting the process (or the conversation), I'm posting a brief recap of the discussion (if I inaccurately or inadequately represent one or more arguments, please modify my comments as necessary and feel free to hurl a fish or two in my direction -- I prefer salmon, by the way.)
    Of 7 participants, 2 support straightforward deletion, 3 support deletion contingent on deletion of the subcats (see the nominations below), and 2 oppose deletion. The arguments offered include:
    For deleting
    does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration or help users to write an encyclopedia - reasons vary but include:
    "too vague to be useful ... fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains"
    "user categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building"
    interest in something, watching a TV programme, or listening to a radio show does not translate into an interesting in writing about these subjects
    For keeping
    editors should be allowed to "choose how specific they wish to be"
    Black Falcon (Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some of the subcategories are now on deletion review, so I don't know if this can be closed until that is over. If that closes as endorse, this looks like a pretty clear delete. If it closes as overturn and relist, then this will likely have to wait even longer to be closed until after the relisted categories get closed. *yawn* VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the DRV results in "relist", I suggest they be subcats of Category:Wikipedians by radio series (which I just created). Category:Wikipedians interested in radio should be a parent cat, if kept at all. That said, I think a parent of a different name may be in order. (See: Serial (radio and television) for more information.) So either way, I support depopulation (and possibly deletion) of Category:Wikipedians interested in radio. - jc37 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedians by radio talk shows
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. east.718 at 04:19, March 1, 2008
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Car Talk - zero-user, single-article (Car Talk) category
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern - (The Howard Stern Show)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Le Show - single-user, single-article (Le Show) category
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and the Mad Dog - single-article category (Mike and the Mad Dog)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and Mike in the Morning - single-article category (Mike and Mike in the Morning)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nobody Likes Onions - single-user, single-article (Nobody Likes Onions) category
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Opie and Anthony - single-article category (Opie and Anthony)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush Limbaugh - (The Rush Limbaugh Show)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Ed Schultz Show - single-user, single-article (The Ed Schultz Show) category
Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Herd - single-article category (The Herd with Colin Cowherd)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Iain Lee Show - single-user category, lacks a corresponding article (The Iain Lee Show, Iain Lee Show), the show is mentioned in the Iain Lee biographical article
Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Stephanie Miller Show - single-article category (The Stephanie Miller Show)
Nominator's rationale: The collaborative potential of these categories, if any, is in most cases limited to one article only. Moreover, it is questionable whether merely listening to a radio talk show implies any type of above-average ability or desire to improve articles about these shows. Knowledge of what was said on a talk show, which is the type of knowledge that is most likely to be gained from listening to the show, is not especially useful in an encyclopedic context, for two reasons. First, additions based on such knowledge are likely to be minor trivia -- although there will be exceptions. Second, per WP:UNDUE, articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". That is, that something was stated on a radio talk show should be mentioned in an article only if reliable sources deem it noteworthy, irrespective of how important, interesting, or controversial an individual user thinks it to be. In the end, the knowledge that matters is knowledge of and access to these reliable sources, not knowledge of the transcript of a talk show.
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 panelist game shows
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. east.718 at 04:20, March 1, 2008
Category:Wikipedians who listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue - (I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue}
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Just a Minute - (Just a Minute)
Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".
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 radio 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: Delete. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show - (The Goon Show)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Navy Lark - (The Navy Lark)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Round the Horne - (Round the Horne)
Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".
  • Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If we keep TV series, then we should keep these. Same reasons, same rationales. We shouldn't discriminate by media type. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I agree with jc37 that it might create a double standard to delete these but keep the TV series categories, I fully support deleting (or renaming) all the tv series categories, so I have no proplem with dealing with these first. Additionally the TV categories will have articles on individual episodes to collaborate on, which the radio shows will not have, so I'm not even entirely convinced that if we have those we should keep these. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity

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: deleted by User:East718. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Potentially divisive, "not" category, lots of precedent to delete. Listing in speedy for another admin to confirm. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors

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 - jc37 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. The userbox is sufficient to convey this information. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My impression of Xbox Ambassadors, after having read the relevant section in the main article, is that they are the equivalents of Wikipedia administrators: "hand picked community members" who are supposed to be "helpful towards other ... members and are willing to assist new ... users". That is, their designation is more likely to reflect their experience, commitment, and personality than any subject-specific knowledge. Is that not (mostly) accurate? Black Falcon (Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being Xbox Ambassadors they are much more in touch with the Xbox "scene" than run-of-the-mill Xbox users would be. Wikipedians who are also Xbox Ambassadors are very likely to contribute relevantly to articles, which is why I humbly maintain the category is worthwhile. xenocidic (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing this page, I still support deletion, although for a diffrent reason. While I can see how this type of categorisation could hypothetically be useful in some cases, I don't feel that this type of category is a good way of categorising users with the ability and/or desire to contribute to articles related to Xbox. It seems to me that "Wikipedians by alternate website status" are too prone to categorisation-for-identification as opposed to categorisation-for-collaboration, and would support independent creation of a more directly collaboration-oriented (e.g. interest) category for Xbox. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. In addition to that there is a genuine problem here. Your arguments basically amount to "we were hand-picked by X organization or company hence we should have a user category to locate each other". That is fundamentally wrong. I don't have a problem with a category for users interested in Xbox but this isn't it. No one is stopping you from contributing to Wikipedia regardless of the category, you don't need it so we don't need to make an exception. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Xbox Ambassadors are, by their very nature, interested in Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of performing the actions required to be selected. on a related note, Interesting quote by nominator -
(source). By their own words, the nominator seems to support this category. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finding others for a Wikipedia-furthering purpose, is what the implication was. I don't believe this category does that (although I would support a category called "Wikipedians interested in Xbox" or something similar). VegaDark (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Having read up on usercats, I am beginning to see the reason why this usercat might not qualify for the proposal and have changed my vote to "don't care anymore". It was a fun argument, while it lasted. No hard feelings. xenocidic (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. This category serves one purpose only, to allow people hand-picked by Microsoft as ambassadors to find each other. Any other purpose can be achieved through a broader category. No thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Xbox 360

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 - jc37 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most people "like" Xbox 360 i'd imagine. Not helpful to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That statement must assume either that any random like can translate into an encyclopedically-relevant interest or that there is something special about Xbox 360. I personally don't feel that either assumption is justified (e.g. I like luxury cars, yet I'm not at all likely to improve articles related to luxury cars). Black Falcon (Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would introduce miscategorization problems (people who like the 360 might not own one). I don't see why this category needs deleted in the first place, let's let the CFD run its' course. xenocidic (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an extension of MySpace. What will we have next? Those who like the Nintendo Wii? Computers? Halo? A Butterfinger's candy bar? The list can go on, and we'd be stuck with hundreds of trivial categories that do not add value to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Seicer (t | c) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it was meant to be so Xbox users can find other Xbox users and ask for help, as wikipedians are serposed to help. --Pie's can talk! 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in Meher Baba

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 per CSD C1 (empty category) and CSD G7 (author request). The category (and userbox) creator emptied the category and consented to deletion at the category talk page. Black Falcon (Talk) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Meher Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual, categorizing by individual is too narrow for collaboration. Possibly redundant to Category:Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

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: see below. There are three main issue at stake: purpose, scope and WP:POINT.

I don't think that anyone disputes that this category does not (directly, at least) facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. In fact, it is marked as a humour category. Given that there is precedent for retaining some humour pages, the question then becomes whether this should be such a case. Without making any judgment on that point specifically, I do wish to note two points:

  1. When it comes to categories (as opposed to, say, user pages or pages in the Wikipedia namespace), there is fairly consistent precedent against humour categories (see various discussions linked here).
  2. A humour page is effective only if it is generally perceived to be humorous; such a page is not likely to be appropriate if it is a source of controversy, ill will, disruption, or anything else that hurts the encyclopedia or detracts from an atmosphere of collaboration. With this category, there is no consensus that it does not have any negative side-effects.

Various discussions (at UCFD and MFD) have produced a relatively consistent consensus that Wikipedia is not appropriate for random humour that is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. It's safe to say that this catgory is Wikipedia-related, as it was created in response to a specific incident that took place on Wikipedia. This brings us to the third issue...

This category was created in response to a specific incident which involved a certain degree of controversy, hostility, and/or bitterness, and there is no question that it was created to make a point. Whether it is actively disruptive in the process of making this point can be disputed to some extent; however:

  1. The point made by the category targets (comments made by) a single user, and said user has expressed dissatisfaction with the existence of this category.
  2. In continuing to make a point, the category perpetuates the dispute/conflict/incident. This is most certainly unproductive.

Thus, considering all of these factors together, the result is delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now that the rouge admins category is dealt with, I think this can safely be nominated. WP:POINT creation during that discussion that serves no purpose towards encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket

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. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008
Category:Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single article category, hence pointless to have a category for. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who try not to worry

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. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008
Category:Wikipedians who try not to worry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless, lots of past precedent to delete similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 21

edit

Category:Wikipedians who liked The Dukes of Hazzard

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. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who liked The Dukes of Hazzard to Category:Wikipedians who like The Dukes of Hazzard liked > like. - jc37 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons

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. WODUP (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons to Category:Wikipedians who like The Waltons liked > like. - jc37 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be willing to modify your comment to "Delete, without prejudice for recreation, should there be more collaborative material on the topic, or more Wikipedian interest in the catgeory"? - jc37 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate Television

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. Would have prefered not to close this as I participated, but it is unanimous and lack of administrators active here makes it necessary. VegaDark (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who hate Television - "not" category. Long precedent for deletion. See also WP:UBX#User categories. Populated by User:Blacklemon67/Notliketv. (Which is a prime candidate for MfD itself.) - jc37 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who believe in Hetero marriage

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 - was only seeded from a template that has been deleted. --slakr\ talk / 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who believe in Hetero marriage - "Support/Oppose issue" category, and at the same time, close to being a "Wikipedians by sexual preference", both of which have been repeatedly deleted in the past. - jc37 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians on Erasmus

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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians on Erasmus - See ERASMUS programme:
So essentially, this single-article cat was an "all-inclusive" cat for any student of "higher learning" from the European Union.
However, it's also now a defunct programme, that's been subsumed by several others. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Erasmus is still the name used for it - its brand as it were - and it is know by that name. It is not about higher learning in general, it is an exchange programme. And further more it is not a normal exchange programme given its design to make it much easier, provide large support grants for students and its cultural impact (the film L'Auberge espagnole, the culture surrounding the programme such as "erasmus parties" and its use usage (compulsory for some courses) across the continent. I'm afraid jc37 has misunderstood the nature of the programme.- J Logan t: 11:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with that explanation, I'm still looking for how this helps contribution, rather than just interest in a single article (or possibly 2). It seems to me that a userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh like any of them help contribution, what about Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College? Not really the point behind them.- J Logan t: 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, so long as there are no double standards, getting rather tired of them.- J Logan t: 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like trigonometry

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. I'm also going to go ahead and list Category:Wikipedians who like geometry and Category:Wikipedians who like algebra as renames on the working page, as I feel this is an uncontroversial name change. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Rome

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. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Rome to Category:Wikipedians who like Rome (TV series). - jc37 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Faroe Islands

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 without prejudice. If we have a future influx of Faroese editors, fair enough, but a one-editor category is pointless. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in the Faroe Islands - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Espoo

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 without prejudice to recreation if more than a single Wikipedian joins the category within a few days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in Espoo - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 20

edit

Category:Wikipedians who are Cajuns

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. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are Cajuns to Category:Cajun Wikipedians
Speedy rename to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians by radio station/network

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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These types of categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station does not imply possession of an above-average desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. (These categories could even include people who casually listen to the radio while driving or jogging.) See related precedents here, here and here.

  • Delete all as nominator. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These cats, unlike previous cats I have voted to delete, are nationwide stations or networks, rather than single-market stations, and there are related categories (programs, personalities) associated with them. For example, it is likely that someone who listens to NPR can contribute to National Public Radio and at least one of the many programs on that network, such as All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Marketplace, Car Talk (which is a single-member subcat), or the multitude of other programs. The same could be said of Air America Radio or BBC Radio 4; AAR, in particular, is likely to have listeners who listen to more than one program on the network. The ESPN category contains two daughter categories (for specific programs), with more than a single user in each (each contains a discrete list, with some overlap), which is a valid use of sub-categorization. Sirius is a bit different; there is little to no relationship between the various channels offered by Sirius other than their medium of transmission. I suspect that most of the editors in this category listen to only one channel or program on Sirius (Howard Stern), which limits the utility of the category for collaboration, as they are interested only in Stern, not in Sirius or any of its other offerings. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I think that that's a hard sell. If I were to "tune in", and listen to a single show, once a week, that technically makes me a listener of the station, even though I'm only interested in the single show. And what really makes this not work is syndication. If I only listen to Dr. Demento (interesting that the show is merged to the person's article), to what should I attribute my interest in the show? Westwood One? The individual station? No. Seems to vague, and too broad to be useful. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with listeners of NPR and Air America (I have friends who listen to each, to my consternation) is that they are very committed to their networks, and tend to listen to multiple programs on whichever network they favor. I don't want to mis-characterize their audiences, but they tend to be a bit more enthusiastic than listeners to Dr. Demento or other syndicated radio programs. Much as many fans of Rush Limbaugh or Coast to Coast AM are not just casual listeners, AAR attracts a fairly hardcore crowd, and they tend to be fairly knowledgeable about the network and its personalities. This interest in multiple shows under the network banner is what makes the categories possibly useful, unlike Dr. Demento, which is a single show syndicated to a small ad hoc collection of stations, rather than through a full-fledged national network. The same holds true for almost all of the other talkers, whose shows are syndicated individually; the networks offer entire integrated packages of shows. Horologium (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking also of their television counterparts, such as NBC. Just because I may watch The West Wing, doesn't mean I'm knowledgeable about NBC, or (more importantly) interested whatsoever in collaborating/contributing to the NBC article or any of its related articles, save those which have to do with The West Wing. I see the same problem with the radio networks above. Do you disagree? - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TV networks are a bit different, as most people watch shows from multiple networks. My interest in Top Chef does not translate to an interest in Bravo, or to NBC Universal, its parent. However, as I noted above, NPR and AAR have devoted followings. I have a good friend who seldom listens to any radio station other than NPR unless he is with friends who don't care for it; another friend didn't listen to the radio at all until an AAR affiliate sprang up near him, and it is the only station to which he listens. The networks grouped above have a more clearly defined focus than, say, Wikipedians who listen to Clear Channel stations or Wikipedians who watch CBS programs, which are somewhat arbitrary groupings, because their only connection is based on ownership (who owns the transmitters), while there tends to be a cohesive, thematic grouping for PBS and AAR. (I am leaving the others out because I have little experience of knowledge of them; I have never had access to BBC4, and don't know much about ESPN. I've already addressed Sirius, which I can support deleting, as it is a grouping similar to the Clear Channel and CBS examples I provided above.) They are not single show groupings (such as the Limbaugh example I noted earlier (which has since been nominated for deletion), so there is a possibility of collaboration that doesn't exist with single-show categories. I am not strongly wedded to my argument, though, and I won't grieve if consensus runs against me here. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguayan Portal

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 on alternatives for "maintain". Rename "Uruguayan" to "Uruguay". - jc37 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguayan Portal to Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguay Portal
Speedy rename to replace the adjective ("Uruguayan") with the noun ("Uruguay"). – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is categorizing such users helpful? I think it would be more helpful to categorize those who contribute, not simply maintain a portal. If we do want to categorize those who maintain portals, does that mean we should have an additional category for those who do more than simply maintain them? I prefer "who contribute to" to "who maintain", but there may yet be a better naming convention I haven't thought of. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping users who maintain a portal creates a collaboration-oriented category, but I'm not sure how helpful it is on its own, since anyone wanting to contact such a user could just leave a message on the portal's talk page. (I suppose that the same could be said of WikiProject membership categories...) My concern with the "who contribute" wording is its ambiguity: does it refer to editors who make minor fixes (e.g. spelling, code) to portal pages, who write the articles that are displayed by portals, or who create a portal's subpages? The first group doesn't seem worth categorising, the second is fairly broad and undefined (one can write articles that fall under the scope of several portals without being involved with any of them), and the third could fall under a general interpretation of "who maintain". Black Falcon (Talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy false-colour astronomy representations

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 - jc37 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who enjoy false-colour astronomy representations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, seems to be limited essentially to one article only: false-colour. Moreover, it is questionable whether the message conveyed by the userbox that populates this category (Template:User FalseColour) has any clear relationship to encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject of false-colour astronomy representations (i.e. an interest in improving articles related to the subject).
  • How do you come to that conclusion from a category grouping people who simply proclaim to enjoy the aesthetic value of a particular type of picture? I see nothing from that discussion that leads me to believe that any collaboration potential mentioned is anything more than imagined. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I'm incorrect, but interest in the topic would appear to lend itself to interest in making. (Indeed, who has even heard of the term outside those who are involved in their production, or those who have discussed this here? : ) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone could have stumbled upon the category, wondered what it was, saw a picture and went "cool!" and added themselves to the category. "Who enjoy" is the dealbreaker for me here. That in any category name is doubtful to support collaboration IMO. As named, I don't think it is necessarily safe to assume the users within could help create such images. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Linkin Park

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. Would have prefered not to close this as I participated, but it is unanimous and lack of administrators active here makes it necessary. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Linkin Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the original ECW

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. Wizardman 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the original ECW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of the defunct professional wrestling promotion Extreme Championship Wrestling. If it is judged to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration on articles related to ECW and to have an adequately broad scope, then it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian Extreme Championship Wrestling fans, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians who watch sports.
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 play basketball

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. Wizardman 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as basketball implies neither an above-average knowledge of the sport nor an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the game. The userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment; there is no need to generate a list of users who play the game.
  • Keep for now. Not sure how useful it is, but this has nothing to do with WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and I'd much rather get larger community input on this considering the large numbers here. The previous purges leave me with the impression of a weak consensus. I'd likely still support making a better focus from these categories, or making some sort of transition to an acceptable form that is better aimed at collaboration, but these kinds of TfDs get used as "all or nothing" arguments all the time. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The perception that user categories that contain a high number of users should be treated with more caution is often an illusion masked by the fact that such categories are generally populated by one or two userboxes. A category may contain several hundred user pages, but it only takes one editor to make one edit to one userbox to populate the category or to virtually empty it. As for a transition to something aimed at collaboration, I'm all for creating Category:Wikipedians interested in basketball (though, for obvious reasons, I oppose a straightforward rename). Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the issue regarding population of a category by userboxes has come up in previous discussions, so I took a look at User:UBX/Basketball. In this case, it appears that the category is (almost) entirely populated by transclusions and/or substitutions of the userbox: there are 350 category members and ca. 350 transclusions of the userbox. Nonetheless, I think you hit on an important point when you suggested "making a better focus from these categories"; I don't feel that all sports categories should automatically be treated like this one. For instance, some sports have a fairly narrow base of participants and involve a fairly large commitment of time and effort (e.g. BASE jumping); in these cases, I think it's more likely (though not guaranteed) that people will have an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who lend at Kiva

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. Wizardman 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who lend at Kiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, is limited to a single article: Kiva (organization).
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 follow the Chinmaya Mission

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. Wizardman 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who follow the Chinmaya Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, is essentially limited to two articles only: Chinmaya Mission, Chinmayananda.
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 Unix-like Operating Systems

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 - jc37 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use Unix-like Operating Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are many unix-like operating systems (about 20 are listed here), and each has its own unique features, so this category seems to be too broad to be useful. It could perhaps function as a parent category, but Category:Wikipedians by operating system is not so heavily populated as to require subcategorisation. If kept, the category needs to be renamed to fix the capitalisation of "operating systems".
Edit: I support rename to Wikipedians who use Unix-like operating systems — Johnl1479 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't that argument be used for near every user-related category? I propose the ignore the above Johnl1479 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could, but that's no reason to ignore it. All user categories are useless and they should all be deleted. However, they're not all being discussed today. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. However, it could be argued that user's who belong to certain user categories may provide some knowledge to the relating article should any dispute arise. — Johnl1479 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Agree with User:Johnl1479, Unix-like is a broad category, but it shows that the Wikipedian prefers the similarities that the o/s's have in common — 71.197.96.202 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. See Steel's Talk Page for explanation: I neglected to log out of a public terminal — Johnl1479 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fan of G-Unit Records

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 Merge to Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records members per creators comments about intended use of the category, below. - jc37 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I intended to perform the merge, and discovered that the user's WikiProject userbox had apparebtly been deleted, and this cat was inserted in a series of "fans" userboxes, despite the user's comments below. When I removed this category (supposedly "intended" to be for WP:G-UNIT) from those fan userboxes, the category was empty. Therefore, Delete as C1 - empty of those for whom it was intended. - jc37 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are fan of G-Unit Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is for "fans of G-Unit Records or someone on their roster". If the precedent of this discussion does not apply, and if the category is judged to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, then it should be renamed to a grammatically correct title, such as Category:Wikipedians who like G-Unit Records or Category:Wikipedian fans of G-Unit Records.
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 enjoy Tintin Graphic Novels

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 - jc37 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Tintin Graphic Novels to Category:Wikipedians who read The Adventures of Tintin
Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the comic book series (The Adventures of Tintin), per the convention of the Category:Wikipedians who read comic books. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 19

edit

Category:Protestant Christian 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 merge. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Protestant Christian Wikipedians to Category:Protestant Wikipedians
Speedy merge: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Speedy Merge - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Latter-day Saint 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 merge. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians to Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians
Speedy merge: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians who watch

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: Mixture of Rename and Delete - Since it's been 2 weeks, with no closure, I'll go ahead and ignore the typical guidelines and close this.
Delete Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim
Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" to Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?
Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right
Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls to Category:Wikipedians who like The Golden Girls
Delete the rest. - jc37 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television; some of these seem to be single- or few-article categories (e.g. Charm School, COPS (TV series), Flavor of Love, The Golden Girls) and, thus, should perhaps be deleted. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 18

edit

Category:Wikipedians who are members of CAMRA

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. If a Wikipedians interested in beer category wishes to be created, then by all means. Wizardman 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are members of CAMRA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; being a member of the Campaign for Real Ale does not imply either an above-average interest in or ability to improve the encyclopedia. Moreover, there seems to be only one article that is directly related to the category, so opportunities for collaboration are inherently limited.
  • There is Category:Wikipedians interested in breweries, but the scope is obviously different. What level of knowledge or involvement is the norm with members of CAMRA? Does it involve knowledge of sources and relevant literature? (My impression was that it was an advocacy group not unlike thousands of others. Then again, the fact that there is an annual membership fee (£20) suggests a certain level of interest on the part of members...) – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an advocacy group, but I very successful one. In the 1970s it stopped the big breweries removing real ale in wooden keg beers entirely from the market to concentrate on pressurized metal keg beers. Since then the market in real ale has increased significantly with many new small breweries being started. Members of CAMRA are very knowledgeable about these breweries and real ale in general. I have not time now as I am about to go out, to look up a list of articles that CAMRA members could collaborate on, but there are plenty. Sources - there are several CAMRA mamber written books that are very expert. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying... In light of your comments, I've stricken my "delete" recommendation in favour of some type of renaming, perhaps to Category:Wikipedians interested in beer or Category:Wikipedians in the Campaign for Real Ale. Normally, the interest category would be my first preference, but I worry that it would soon be populated by various userboxes for beer-drinkers who have no interest in articles about beer(s). Black Falcon (Talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Comment in response to Bduke's comments) - That's like saying that members of a U.S. democratic party advocacy group would be knowledgeable to collaborate on quite a few articles related to various U.S. democrat politicians. This sounds like a decent WikiProject in-the-make, but not a good idea for a category. It's food related, and an advocacy (Support/oppose issue) cat. Both of which... - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale

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. Wizardman 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey scale
Speedy rename to fix capitalisation (see Kinsey scale). – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy PhD Comics

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 - With no prejudice against creating a cat of the suggested rename name, if enough WIkipedians are interested. - jc37 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who enjoy PhD Comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Narrow scope; any collaborative potential is limited to 1-2 articles: Piled Higher and Deeper and Jorge Cham. In addition, the userbox that populates the category does not clearly express an interest in collaboration. If there is no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Piled Higher and Deeper, per the convention of Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips.
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 support England F.C.

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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who support England F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Most countries have a national football team and I think it's reasonable to assume that most people support the national team of their country of birth or residence. Thus, I would expect this type of category to be effectively redundant, in most cases, to existing nationality or location category. If there is no consensus to delete, then the category ought to be renamed to Category:Wikipedian England national football team fans, per the convention of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) national team fans and to match England national football team.
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.

February 17

edit

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Pine Bush High 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 Delete - Incidentally, I think we determined in the past that we just needed two admins to endorse to speedy cases like this. (Presuming unanimity of comment, of course.) So, as the nom is an admin + me = 2... - jc37 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Pine Bush High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy delete - see Pine Bush High School. With over 30 precedents over the course of seven months, it's more time-efficient to speedy these than to require a full 5 days of discussion. To quote VegaDark from a 2 February 2008 discussion: "With 30 discussions of past precedent, there is no way any of these will ever survive UCFD without consensus for deleting high school categories being overturned at WP:DRV first, so a UCFD is really only a formality at this point." – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The

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 add "the" per noms. - jc37 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in history of medicine
edit
Category:Wikipedians interested in history of medicine to Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of medicine
Speedy rename to add a definite article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in History of Georgia (country)
edit
Category:Wikipedians interested in History of Georgia (country) to Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of Georgia (country)
Speedy rename to fix capitalisation and add a definite article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Byzantine empire
edit
Category:Wikipedians interested in Byzantine empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Byzantine Empire
Speedy rename to fix capitalisation (see Byzantine Empire) and add a definite article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora Core

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, as I went and upmerged everything already. Wizardman 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora Core to Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an excessively narrow subdivision; also, Fedora has had six distinct cores. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since merging a category involves deleting the category page, would you support deletion now without prejudice to the later nomination of the target category? (Only one of the categories was tagged, so unless the other is tagged and this discussion is relisted, only one can be affected by this CFD.) Black Falcon (Talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for the Pacific Union

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 - jc37 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians for the Pacific Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Political support/oppose category for users who support the creation of the Pacific Union; does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration.
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:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers

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. Wizardman 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete: Seems to be orphaned? Hardly used? --The Helpful One (Review) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Divine 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 - jc37 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Divine Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A joke category populated by this userbox, which states: "This user is God." While the userbox can be considered humorous, heretical, or somewhere in between (depending one's views and inclinations), the category is utterly without use.
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 play pen-and-paper 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: Delete - jc37 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play pen-and-paper games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All-inclusive, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. A category that includes everyone who has ever played tic-tac-toe, hangman, connect the dots, or any other game involving paper and a pen or pencil cannot possibly be useful.
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:Asian 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 - jc37 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per the consensus reached for Category:Eurasian Wikipedians (see here or here). Categorisation by race does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, partly because racial classifications are fairly broad and vague and partly because identifying with a certain racial group does not imply any type of ability to improve (or interest in improving) the encyclopedia. A userbox or userpage notice is adequate to convey the sentiment. Also, this category is populated by Template:User Filipinos Are Asians, which is actually a userbox for belief rather than racial affiliation; one can hold the belief that Filipinos are racially Asian without being Asian.
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.

February 16

edit

Category:Wikipedians by website and all subcategories

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, without prejudice to more focused individual or small group nominations (for deletion, renaming, or merging). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by website (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Intellipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Link Everything Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to MusicBrainz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to OpenStreetMap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiWikiWeb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wookieepedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's time for these categories to go. There is numerous past precedent to delete these individually, but I think as a group categorizing Wikipedians by what other websites they "contribute to" does not help Wikipedia in any way. I contribute to plenty of other websites, but that does not mean that I have anything relevant to add to the articles on those websites or any intent on collaboration on them. Additionally, even if a collaborative intent was implied by these categories, their scope would be too narrow to sustain a category past collaboration on a single article, which renders the purpose of having a category pointless (since collaboration on single articles can better occur on such articles' talk page). VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no strong views, but it is often suggested that material should be transwikied. Would these categories help to find people who would do that? I am currently trying to clean up some articles by moving some material to another wiki. It would certainly be helpfull to know of other editors who worked on that other wiki, although it is not one with a category like these. --Bduke (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - As we are building an encyclopedia, which is, by its nature, a reference work, I think that it is quite useful, helpful, and, honestly, smart, to have a grouping of individuals who contribute to other online reference works. If we are to presume that Wikipedian categories have any value, certainly this would be one. These are individuals who, while we may or may not presume adpetness, they at least have a smattering of experience at contributing to reference works, and I would presume that accessing that knowledge base (by looking through the category grouping for someone) would be exactly the usage presumed for Wikipedian categories. - jc37 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even realize that the category was for "reference-based websites" only, so the parent category needs a rename to reflect that if kept. That being said, I still disagree that we can assume any extra ability to collaborate on Wikipedia as a result of being in these categories, and even if that were true, I think there could be much better names for such categories. For instance, let's say there was both a category for Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Alpha and a category for Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Beta. Both are Star Trek Wikis, so there would be no benefit to have both categories since the users within each would presumably have the same skills. This situation presents the fact that similar-content website categories would be duplicative of eachother if the argument to keep is that the users within would have some special skill related to the subject of the website they contribute to. Further, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that someone who simply "contributes" to another website has a better ability to contribute to wikipedia on that subject. Contribute can mean anything from being a regular contrubutor for years to simply fixing a spelling error once as an anon years ago. While it would be nice if the editors in the latter group wouldn't add themselves to the category, it is undeniable that such categorization occurs nonetheless (for those that like to add themselves to every category that applies to themselves, regardless of collaboration intent). Therefore, I still feel these should be deleted, but if kept I think a rename to resolve the issues above is in order. VegaDark (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely don't mean this as "snarky" (whatever that means) as this may appear, but... Read the page? It (I presume?) makes clear the category inclusion criteria. That said, what would your suggestions for a rename be? - jc37 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the accuracy in naming, to a point. Sometimes the inclusion criteria can be narrow enough for a category, but yet too large for a succinct name. For example, this category is specifically for reference-based websites, but also includes some free or roughly free (IANAL) content websites. That seems difficult to quantify in a single name, but yet not so broad an inclusion criteria as to make this parent cat "not useful". (And I dunno if we need to think about subcatting the cat yet.) - jc37 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Keep as is--these are mostly or entirely relevant. They are some of them free projects, appropriate for cooperation. The specific names of the sites are distinctive for anyone who might possibly be interested DGG (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Reuse issues, both in both directions benefit from the free-content-site cats, and I see reasonable potential to include the others as well. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who play Resident Evil

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 - jc37 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play Resident Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play card games and all subcategories

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: Deleted nat.utoronto 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play card games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play blackjack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play FreeCell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play go fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play hearts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play poker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play solitaire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play spades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play spit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've played almost every one of these at least once, yet I have no desire or above-average ability to collaborate on any of these articles just because I have played them. Some of them are nearly all-inclusive (who hasn't played poker or freecell?) and some of them suffer from being too narrow of a topic for collaboration (go fish, spit, uno). For those in these categories that do want to collaborate, they should create an "interested in" version of the category, since categorizing users by what game they play does not help anything. A rename could introduce miscategorization, so independet creation of interested in categories would be a better idea. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I might oppose deletion of a few of these. Some are, as the nominator notes, too specific, but not all of them. I would treat the naming convention "who play" similar to the Wikipedians by skill categories. I'd be interested in discovering how many multiple articles are category could represent. Further discussion would be welcome. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the two collectible card games, which perhaps should be considered separately. I have, at one time or another, played almost all of these games (except the two collectible card games and UNO), yet I've no above-average knowledge of the subjects, access to or awareness of sources and literature regarding the subjects, or interest in contributing to articles related to these subjects. I'm sure that this is true of many or most others. Simply playing a card game -- especially considering how easy it is to do so on the computer -- doesn't imply any knowledge of it beyond the basic rules. I think players of the collectible card games may be more involved in the games (if nothing else, they must purchase the cards to play), and thus more knowledgeable about the subject. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play card games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These collectively would aid in improving the coverage of card games on WikiPedia.--Bedford 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would the nominator have any issue with splitting the "copyrighted" card games into individual nominations? - jc37 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, although UNO is copyrighted and there seems to be no agument to keep that- I assume you mean the other two? (I'd still support deletion for those, however, as "who play" ≠ "interested in"). VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the above. I was going to suggest keeping, since there are quite a few articles on these, and my comments above concerning Wikipedians by skill. (Bridge and Poker in particular have a whole library of study on the specific topics.) However, the computer point was well-taken. These being in the "public domain", there are a myriad of games, variations (Solitaire? which one?), and so on, included in all sorts of books, video game packs, etc. There just is too far a divide between those who play for entertainment, and those who "study the game". While I tend to shy away from "interested in" if at all possible, there's just no getting around the confusion that applies to these. And along with that, I'd likely support a similar deletion/recreated-renamed of any "Wikipedians who play a specific game" cat. - jc37 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play UNO
edit
Category:Wikipedians who play UNO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play CCGs
edit
Category:Wikipedians who play Magic: The Gathering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who play Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Comment - Split from main nom as requested above. - jc37 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the collectible cards categories. Magic has a WikiProject of its own. --Bedford 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my comments in the main nom. If kept, I would support a rename to "interested in" in this case, since the "divide" actually doesn't seem to be much of one here. - jc37 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (as original nom) - "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on topics related to". If no consensus to delete, then rename to "interested in". Categorizing everyone who has played these games is not helpful. I have played MTG and have no interest in collaborating on articles related to MTG. It certainly has enough articles to facilitate collaboration, but the current name does not convey that (and a delete is my first preference because a rename could introduce miscategorization, but I'd rather have that than keeping as is). VegaDark (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I requested that these categories be split from the main nomination because of the possibility that there might be a close connection between involvement and interest in these cases. However, I'm largely convinced by Jc37 and VegaDark's comments; they, in conjunction with a few other factors, lead me to suggest:
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 the Star Wars music

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: speedily deleted as WP:CSD#C1 on 00:28, 21 February 2008 by User:Jc37. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who love the Star Wars music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I love the Star Wars music myself, but it doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize that fact. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found that there are quite a few articles on the themes and music from Star Wars. That said "who love" is probably not the best convention for this. I think "who listen to" was the most recent convention. I'm shying away from "interested in" in this case, but I won't oppose that rename, if there is consensus. (In other words, Delete "who love", with no prejudice for recreation of a more accurately named category, while alerting the current members of the new possibility.) - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed there are probably enough Star Wars music articles to facilitate collaboration, but my point still stands that it doesn't help to categorize "who loves" anything (which apparently you agree with, so I'm not sure why you opposed). VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who love documentary films

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 - jc37 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who love documentary films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedians who "love" documentary films do not necessarily want to collaborate on articles related to such films. If that is the case, the users within should create and join Category:Wikipedians interested in documentary films. As named, this does not foster collaboration. A rename may introduce miscategorization, so independent creation of the new category would be the best option. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Friedrich Nietzsche

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 - jc37 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Friedrich Nietzsche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual, categorizing by individual is too narrow of a scope for user categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in history

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: Depopulate, retain as parent category. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like the recently nominated book category, this seems far too general and broad to facilitate any sort of collaboration by individual users in the category. This should be kept as a parent category for more refined categories, but depopulated of individual users. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Radio station 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. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who listen to SwitchAM 1197 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to Heart 106 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to 2Day FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to KCRW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to KROQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per precedent set at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008#Category:Wikipedians who listen to FM 103.2, these types of categories are not helpful. To quote the reasoning there, "This category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. In addition, any possible collaborative merit is limited to just one article, so the category's scope is too narrow." VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 14

edit

Category:User simple and all subcategories

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 all to Category:User simple - jc37 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User simple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User simple-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User simple-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User simple-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User simple-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:User simple-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Usually my stance on language categories is that if a wikipedia exists or is likely to be created in that language, we should keep it, otherwise it should be deleted. This is a bit of an anomaly from my stance, as we have a simple English Wikipedia, however I still feel these categories are not helpful. Simple English, as far as I understand it, is not a real distinct language, but simply English simplified down to allow ESL students learn it easier (from Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia: "The Simple English Wikipedia was started as a response to needs of English learners (EAL students) and English teachers"). At first I was only going to nominate the native speaker category, but I realized this would probably best serve Wikipedia simply merged to Category:User en-1 and en-2. Everyone in these categories would presumably be learning English, hence this is redundant to Category:User en-1 and Category:User en-2. At minimum, however, Category:User simple-N needs to be deleted/merged since, by definition, it is impossible to be a native speaker of simple English. I know there is an argument to be made that it may take some skill to be able to reduce one's vocabulary enough to be effective at simple English, which could also be the source of some users in the category, but I think the presumption should be that most proficient speakers of English are sufficiently competent to be able to use simple English. Every time you talk to a young child you use simple English, so I don't think of being able to "not use big words", so to speak, is a good reason to categorize users. If there is a concern that there might be miscategorization by merging such users, I could support outright deletion of all the categories as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge 1 and 2 to Category:User en-1, Merge 3, 4 and N to Category:User en-2, or delete if no consensus to merge, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it quite hard to speak or write Simple English. Complex words and phrasings slip in inadvertantly. (see?) So although I'm en-N, I am at best simple-2. And yet, I don't think the normal language classification scheme works either. I'd suggest rather than a merge (I would be rather confused by being merged into en-1 when I am already in en-N, were I to badge my simple skills) that a rethink of the scheme of classification be undertaken. I think there is collaborative/encyclopedic value in knowing who might be good at proofing work when setting out to improve Simple English articles. But the current scheme doesn't convey this well as is, so I agree with the nominator, something needs doing... ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N, delete the rest. Or if no consensus for that, merge all. Per Lar, I can see the value of knowing who can understand and write in Simple English. I don't, however, see the need to break it up further. --Kbdank71 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, keep N? That's the only one that's impossible to actually be true. You can't be a native speaker of a language that specifically describes itself as a simplified version of a language to help non-native speakers. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe don't call it "N" then... give it some other name/tag/letter that conveys "I feel I'm good at the (difficult for some) task of writing in simple"... (how about "E" for expert) Like I said, I'm not and I know it. I've tried writing over there, (mostly commenting on things like CU noms and the like) and rereading what I wrote, it came out stilted and difficult to understand. The vocab was smaller but the structure if anything was more tangled than how I normally speak. (if such is possible, I can hear my "fans" saying now!) This is a discussion where I think a heads up to the category members (or even a mention over on simple's village pump?) might get some more creative ideas flowing... ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. How about merging all into Category:User simple? I like the E for expert, but I'm sure that will confuse people who are used to numbers and N's. --Kbdank71 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Lar. Being able to write in Simple English is not the same as being able to talk to children. It needs special skills. I think we should ask on simple's village pump. Let us see what users there would like to see here to recruit people to help them out. A possible solution, but I would await the comments from users over at the simple WP, is to just keep Category:User simple, but the userbox should say "This user can write in Simple English", not "This user can speak Simple English". It is writing skills that we want, not speaking skills. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple English is unusual in one main way. Understanding it and writing it are entirely different things. Understanding falls into three categories: none (speaks no English), moderate (speaks basic English) and native (native, fluent or high level English). This is mainly the reason it was created - to make it easy to understand. Writing it is entirely different. As stated above, there is no native speakers. Many times people believe because they are fluent in English, they are also fluent in SE. Even among our regular contributors and admins on Simple, there are few that would qualify for a 3 or 4. It is not so much that they cannot do it, but they don't know the rules. It is much like perfectly understanding English but knowing only 10% of the rules of grammar. Overall, the separation of levels/categories needs to be based on writing, not understanding. 0, 2, 3 and 4 would be the most likely divisions so I would suggest merging 1 into 2 and N into 4. Creol (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (Simple:wp admin)[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:Traceur 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:Wikipedian traceurs. "Traceur" is the tern for a person who practices parkour; "Wikipedian <foo>s" is the usual convention for subcategories under Category:Wikipedians by skill, to which this needs to be added. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Traceur Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Wikipedians who practice Parkour" - Traceur redirects to Parkour, so at least a rename is in order. However, I don't see why having this categorized is helpful to Wikipedia at all, so my first preference would be to delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Wikipedians of" 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 as per nom. I would recommend Black Falcon's suggested course of action, i.e. decoupling the userbox from the category. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the latest discussion on the "Wikipedians by location" categories, there was more or less a consensus that "Wikipedians of" should be changed to "Wikipedians from", so let's make this official. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians on/who live in/citizens of 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: no consensus for Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island and delete Category:Wikipedian citizens of the European Union (the sole user in the category is already in two more specific subcats of Category:Wikipedians in Europe). Category:Wikipedians who live in Petrozavodsk has already been speedy deleted per criterion C1 (empty category). – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the latest discussion on the "Wikipedians by location" categories, there was more or less a consensus that these should be changed to "Wikipedians in", so let's make this official. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in jury nullification

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 - jc37 07:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in jury nullification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All 26 users in the category are in the category as a result of this userbox, which states "This user supports Jury Nullification". No indication any of the users are actually interested in collaborating on topics related to jury nullification, and even if they were, there is a question as to if this subject is sufficiently broad enough to facilitate collaboration past a single article, which I don't think it does. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

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 Speedily close - In the past, when such categories have been created for WP:POINT reasons, due to a sudden semi-large scale drama, it was later determined that nominating them so close to the event was probably not a good idea. I'm extending this category the same courtesy. Feel free to re-nominate in at least a week or so, at editorial discretion. - jc37 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense. Probably speedyable but I brought it here in the interest of avoiding any complaints. Created during fallout of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of User:Equazcion. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Central California

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; incidentally, many of the users in this category are already in the parent. – Black Falcon (Talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in Central California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too vague/broad to facilitate collaboration. Central California goes to a disambiguation page. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small location 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 - In going through these, I discovered that several were the creations of a single editor. I went through the editor's userbox creation list page, and removed nearly all the categories from the userboxes. They all were either redlinks, or had only userbox listing pages, or had only 1 or 2 actual members. (As well as the concerns of the nom, below, of course.) If this leaves them empty, I'll delete. The other nominations below are similar situations. Didn't upmerge as the few users involved already had several location cats, including a "step up". - jc37 - jc37 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians from Valdosta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only one user despite existing for over a year, city of 45,529 people as of 2006.

Category:Wikipedians in Lahr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No users in category, only populated by a userbox page. Created almost 2 years ago. Location with a population of only 43,810 as of 2005.

Category:Wikipedians in Temple Cloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only one user despite existing for 17 months. Population of 1,400 as of 2001.

Category:Wikipedians in Bexley, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

10 months, 1 user, 13,000 population as of 2000.

Category:Wikipedians in Saratoga Springs, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

15 months, 2 users, 26,000 population as of 2000.

Category:Wikipedians in Cobourg, Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nearly 2 years, 1 user, 18,000 population as of 2006.

Category:Wikipedians in Kirkland WA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

18 months, 1 user, 46,000 population as of 2005.

Per precedent to delete Category:Wikipedians from Fox Chapel, PA below, these are too narrow to facilitate collaboration. Probably a lot more of these, but I got tired of looking. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 13

edit

Category:Rouge admins

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
This was a rather lengthy discussion, and it could use at least some summary. (So I apologise in advance for the length of the closure.)
The following is from a template posted to this discussion at one point. It's at least a decent start:
Arguments for Keep
  • 1.) Meant for humorous purposes only
  • 2.) It's harmless/doesn't hurt anyone
  • 3.) Disruption by some people doesn't mean anything is wrong with the category
  • 4.) A category has since been added for regular editors too
  • 5.) Deleting it takes away an element of personality/tradition/culture from Wikipedia
  • 6.) Nothing wrong with a joke restricted to admin use only
  • 7.) Nothing wrong with it if it's open to use by all users
Arguments for Deletion
  • 1.) Admin-only joke category not in spirit of Wikipedia
  • 2.) Adminship not a cabal/trophy; restricted joke category serves to perpetuate view of adminship as a special club/clique
  • 3.) Divisive/offensive
  • 4.) Would be okay as a joke but has had serious consequences/been taken seriously/not worth trouble it's caused
  • 5.) Humorous category with no collaborative use/no real benefit
  • 6.) Most humor-only categories are deleted, no reason this is different
  • 7.) Could be viewed as an effort to suppress criticism, even if intended humorously
  • 8.) Userbox/page sufficient for humor purpose
In addition to these there were several links to other essays. We have a tradition that commenters can link to an essay in lieu of retyping what the essay said in a specific discussion. As such, there were several links to various sections of WP:AADD and WP:NOT.
There were a few additional things that need to be noted (to which I gave additional weight in this closure):
1.) While normally, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem might apply; in this case those comments are specifically placed at Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal, and I believe that there is a strong consensus agreeing with what was quoted: that admiship is "no big deal", and is merely a collection of tools, and a few added responsibilities which go along with those tools.
2.) The rather clear confusion between rogue and rouge, even amongst those commenting here. (And by the way, it would be easy enough to discount every "vote" which indicated that the commenter thought that this was a category for rogue admins. But I did not do so, as the category has apparently grown in membership to include those who have/had that same mistaken opinion of the intended inclusion criteria of the category.) So it's clear that the category's inclusion criteria has become muddled at best.
Lar's comments clarify the category's initial history well enough, I think:
  • "I suggest you and everyone else concerned about the category being " bad-faith, disruptive, divisive and deliberately so" might want to read Wikipedia:Rouge_admin. That essay/joke/whatever you want to call it is the definition of what it means to be "rouge" (not rogue, the typo is deliberate there) in the en:wp context. You can argue that irony doesn't work well on line, or that the category isn't making the point it is intended to make because people don't get the joke, or you can even argue that it has passed its day, if you like. But to say it's bad faith... misses the point. Back in the day, you used to gain admission to the category by some other admin spotting something particularly clueful you had done, some particularly astute or courageous edit or block.... to roll back the tide of linkspammers, POV pushers and assorted crazies with fringe theories to push. The addition sometimes even cited the diff, you never added yourself to it, that was declasse. It was a badge of honor among some. Again, perhaps that day has passed. Perhaps most in it now don't even recall that. Perhaps it needs deleting. Perhaps the existance of it is now divisive. Wikipedia is far bigger and more formal than it was even 2 years ago, and perhaps some inside lore and jokes that used to work, and work well, maybe they don't any more... Perhaps no one gets "Ha Ha only serious" any more? I don't know. But, whatever else it is, it's not bad faith. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
Incidentally, one of the things that came out of the "Userbox wars" was that adding a userbox to someone else's userpage could be considered disruptive. If so, the same can be said about user categories. And if that was the intended usage, it's another reason to delete.
3.) The incident which resulted in the block of a Wikipedian - While noteworthy, I won't duplicate the discussion here, except to say that adding oneself to a category which has inclusion criteria which does not fully describe you would seem to be an egregious violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. (I, and I presume everyone else, would want to believe that all categorisatons of Wikipedians are a true statement about themselves.) The question of "Is it humour" merely muddied the waters (and may have been partly a cause of the action/reactions). And this is one of several reasons why Wikipedian categories based on humour have been repeatedly deleted (WP:UCFD/I). As noted in the discussion, one may question whether humour that causes someone to dress up as spiderman and climb the Reichstag (another "humourous" page), is humour, or just biting our fellow Wikipedians. While the humour of the category may or may not have been genuine at one time (and not necessarily at another Wikipedian's expense), these comments are well taken.
4.) Wikipedia history - I think that we have a precedent from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza called the "Messedrocker solution"(named after the Wikipedian who proposed it), for pages on Wikipedia which are of historical value, but which no longer are considered "a good idea". It would apply if this discussion was aimed at the Wikipedian page describing Rouge admins. But this is merely a category of inclusion. As such, I don't think that it would be contrary to the intent and spirit of that solution to place a salted notice (or possibly even a soft-redirect to Wikipedia:Rouge admins) at the category location.
Again, I apologise at the length of the closure, but due to the length of the discussion, it was the only way, I felt, to make the closure clear enough for all. - jc37 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rouge admins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We kept this before because it was understood that it was a humor category, and not to be taken seriously. A non-admin has now been blocked for using this category. If we can't use the joke category in a humorous and fun way, without fearing that paranoid admins are going to block us for it, then it's not a humor category. It just sucks all the fun out of it. Ned Scott 07:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator I think it's clear that most of us don't want to see this category get deleted, but none the less I believe the situation documented at WP:ANI#Block of User:Equazcion and this category need some clarification about its use. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/keep I just wanted to let everyone know that I no longer seek deletion of this category, and rather it would be kept, as a humor category. At the start I wouldn't have minded it if it had been deleted, but I made this nomination thinking it would likely be kept and simply get some constructive discussion on the issue. However, the issue really isn't with this specific category, but how dispute resolution was handled. I don't completely disagree about if non-admins should be allowed to use it or not. I'm sorry for coming to my senses a little late in the game, and I hope we don't axe a part of the humor in this community. A situation like this could have happened for any category, so my reasons for nominating this one don't really apply. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point! Point! Block him! just kidding :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:16, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. One user was annoyed because this category was kept at a previous XfD discussion. Therefore (and WP:POINT is overused, but this is a perfect example) he figured that repeatedly adding himself to the category (and thus possibly giving the confusing impression that he was an admin) was a fine way to disrupt it. Equazcion is by no means the worst offender (and I am not referring to the nom here either) but quite why we let a small group of editors - see ANI discussion - continue their tiresome "all admins are idiots/incompetent/whatever" campaign on Wikipedia is beyond me. Black Kite 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know - as I said, Ned, I don't include you in this. Your nom is reasonable under the circumstances, but I would hope that disruption by editors isn't a reason to delete, not because it's particularly important, but purely for the slippery slope factor. Black Kite 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poor judgment related to this affair abounded and continues to abound. By no means is it limited to one user and one administrator. Mike R (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making a point isn't blockable, disrupting to make a point is, but we don't really have any evidence of that (and no, the disruption caused by the anticipation of disruption doesn't count). The fact remains that someone got blocked for using a humor category, and that should be a big WTF to anyone. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia does not need admin only fun clubs where admins laugh at the scum aka regular editors and boast about breaking the rules by writing stuff like "Rouge admins firmly believe that adminship is a trophy, and will block anyone who states otherwise." Extremely divisive and offensive, it sucks the fun out of the project for anyone not part of the club. -Lapinmies 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • well now wait a second, I don't think any of the admins listed in this cat think that way. User:John, the blocking admin, is not in this cat. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The implication clearly is that these admins don't care about the rules or the rights of the editors and I find this outrageous. Just click on the link to the rougelike game and it tells you what it means to be a rouge admin "Your character is a "rouge" admin, and you must commit as many outrageous actions as possible before you'll get forced out of Wikipedia." I understand that this is supposed to be a joke, but it is very offensive and divisive. -Lapinmies 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the same grounds that the humor cat Category:Gayass Wikipedians was slaughtered and on the grounds that admins don't look good in drag anyway. I mean, "rouge" is makeup, isn't it?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Omg drama. Omg no sense of humour. Omg omg omg. The justification for this MFD is effectively "It's not fair because non-admins can't be in a category that is specifically for admins" - just read that a few times and realise how silly it really is. Equazcion didn't solely get blocked for using the category, he got blocked for being a dick about it when asked reasonably to remove a category from his userpage that identified the subject as an admin, and commenced a lame edit war. I wouldn't have gone for a 24 hour block (maybe a 24 second one), but I can see why it was imposed. Neıl ☎ 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to Rouge Wikipedians since anything else would be pointy considering I created Category:Rouge editors. Both admins and those who don't want adminship need to blow off steam sometimes and humor is the best way to do that. We now have two such categories, one for each group, and as long as we can keep it humorous and not take ourselves too seriously without losing focus on our primary task here this can work out. I think this has been blown way out of proportion. As for Category:Gayass Wikipedians I didn't approve of that deletion (mildly speaking) and there were more serious issues at stake there. I don't think we should compare the two. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
break 1
edit
break 2
edit
  • Strong delete. This category's only function is to ridicule the notion of some admins being actually rogue. I wouldn't mind the honest Category:Rogue admins, but this category here is needlessly inflammatory. Delete, and open the overdue MfD on Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Any efforts to suppress criticism, however far-fetched it may be, serve no collaborative purpose, but indeed actively hinder it. User:Dorftrottel 13:23, February 13, 2008
  • Keep. Why not? Non admins can't be a member? I can't be a member of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, because it says that it is for people who are not already admins. I don't go and add myself to it and refuse to remove the category. There's no reason to delete this, at all, and no, I am not, and never have been, within this category. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but admins to get over it and get a sense of humour and proportion and stop wasting everyone's time with blocks for unlicenced jokes on userpages, and while we're at it why not apply the same standards on all CfDs not just admin ones eh?. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I didn't have any problem with this category when I was under the impression that it actually was intended purely as a joke. However my recent block, which resulted from adding myself to this supposedly joke category, has changed my mind. As User:Wikidemo pointed out, "[If] the category itself is a joke, ... it's fair game for all (an administrator-only joke area does not seem to be in the spirit of the project)..." If it's a joke, then by definition it's a joke that anyone should be able to partake in. If it's at all not a joke, it should be deleted. Even if there is some humorous reason to keep it around, the amount of divisiveness and controversy it has created is reason enough to get rid of it. It's fine to keep a joke around as long as it doesn't cause any harm and no one takes it remotely seriously, but since that doesn't seem to be the case and it's causing all this mess, with this being its third CfD, it's time for it to go. There's no compelling reason to keep a joke around if it causes this much trouble. Furthermore, categories that exist for humorous purposes only get deleted by the truckload every day, for the reason that they don't aid in encyclopedic collaboration. It never matter that they're "just jokes". If they don't help people write the encyclopedia, they get deleted. That reason surely applies to this category. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:44, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC) (copied over from usertalk by DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong big fucking waste of time. This won't be deleted, period. Someone might as well close it now, so it can go to DRV and get endorsed. The admins want their toys, the admins will have their toys. --Kbdank71 14:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit-conflicted Keep - The community deserves the ability to laugh at itself. Equazcion, I'm sorry you got blocked for re-adding yourself, but it is what it is and I think the block was justified. Common sense tells non-admins not to put {{administrator}} on our user page or try and join the bathrobe cabal--common sense can (and has, until now) tell non-admins not to join categories created for admins. As for concerns that this is creating a special club or group out of admins...well, it seems to me that becoming an admin kind of puts you in a separate group anyway. --jonny-mt 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
break 3
edit
I don't think Equazcion finds it too funny anymore. Turns out humor is serious business. — Save_Us † 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a joke has got loads of categories deleted, why not this one? (Hypnosadist) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an admin category. --Kbdank71 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, this is not a good reason to keep, so I have changed my mind, mainly per Lar and Tony. We move on. --John (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes!
a)Reduces good faith; both on behalf of the rouge admin and on the person seeing that an admin is rouge.
b)Wikipedia is not a comedy club its an encyclopedia.
c)It can be viewed as insulting.
d)It is disruptive yet serves no purpose in aiding the creation of wikipedia. (Hypnosadist) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe because of that big purple box that claims it's humor, and yet someone got blocked because of this so-called humor. Maybe because by blocking, admins just told everyone loud and clear that we are above the proles, and don't you dare screw with our joke. Or maybe it's because we aren't above the proles, and we should stop acting like we are. Just a few guesses. --Kbdank71 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, no. They got blocked because of the blue box (the one that says this is a category used for administration, the one that points out that the cat is a subcat of the supercat that collects the admin only categories), not the purple one. You seem to be polemicising and that may not be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never had a problem with this category until User:Equazcion got blocked. I thought it was harmless and funny. But it's clear that the point of the joke, zenlike or not, is being missed by both admins and non-admins, and it either needs to be reworked or removed. And considering the vast majority of people here are firmly in the keep or delete camps, reworking it probably isn't going to work. Am I polimicising? Perhaps. I'm amazed this mess got this far over a joke (because it doesn't matter how many blue boxes you add to the category, the purple one still says it's humor). --Kbdank71 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
break 4
edit
  • Keep. Good heavens people. Yes, it's something of a joke--for admins. I think it should be plenty obvious to anyone who spends far too much time here that it's isn't cabalish–any category that includes myself Geogre (talk · contribs) and David Gerard (talk · contribs) is by definition inclusive, at least as far as sysops are concerned. Given that the sysop who did the block was himself not in the category, I think it's safe to say that the category is not at fault (poor category!) Moving from the concrete to the abstract, the rouge experience does describe a certain approach and mentality toward adminship, including not taking one's self too seriously, but at the same time treating the project itself with utmost respect and veneration. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why does it need a category? WjBscribe's delete comment over at the SLG MfD very nicely sums up the whole "cabal" concern very nicely, and Pascal Tesson notes some uncomfortable parallels with Esperanza. Both of those concerns extend to this category as well. Horologium (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The parallel doesn't follow. In the case of Esperanza and SLG there were demonstrable concerns over cliquish behavior and (especially over Esperanza) empire-building. I'm not aware of any coordinated behavior of people in this category; some of them aren't even on speaking terms at the moment. This is no Esperanza here. Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the "exclusiveness" factor; several peoples' userpages were edited by others to remove what is supposed to be a joke category from their page, and one editor was blocked after rebuffing several admins and returning it to his page. It's hard to call something disruptive when it doesn't violate any policy and is confined to one's own userpage. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would happen with any other "admin" category. Non-admins shouldn't be in a category which describes admins by temperament and approach. There's several fallacies here. First of all, it's not confined to his userpage, but rather puts his user page in a category, which misleadingly implies that he's an admin--which he's not. User pages are not supposed to be misleading in such a fashion; non-admins are not supposed to represent themselves as admins and there's plenty of precedent for that. Furthermore, it's against policy to edit-war, even on your own user page, although there's latitude there depending on what's up. Finally, note my original comment--it's something of a joke, but it is not a "joke category" in the sense you describe it. If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion. Exclusive, yes: exclusive to admins. The community recognizes that such a category of user exists, and jealously guards access to it. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Point taken on edit-warring, although he only reverted twice before being blocked. My primary opposition to this category's existence has not been answered, however: Why does it exist? Every time I have asked that question, the answer invariably boils down to "I like it", or "It's funny" or something similar. Nobody has been able to articulate why a category is needed, in addition to the essay and the userbox. Those who assert their rougeness could always sign the manifesto, which would be accomplished by listifying. While I disagree with the philosophy, that is not driving my opposition. I look at this (and the similar trout slapping categories I cited way up there) and cannot understand how these categories serve any purpose at all. I have watched as similar jokey categories (that are not admin-only) have been deleted without a peep from the admins, and then watch as they shriek when it's a sacred cow admin humor category up on the block. When this was discussed in December, I watched a stream of admins stroll through UCFD for the first time (ever, in some cases, in quite a while for others) and discuss only the three admin cats; they didn't participate in any other way, despite the backlog of discussions requiring admin attention (and the backlog notice at the top of the screen). I watched a single admin spend all day closing a mountain of discussions, because only three admins regularly participated at UCFD, and two of them had contributed to or initiated all of the categories. Horologium (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with everything Mackensen says, a joke that people don't get isn't a good joke. A parable that doesn't instruct ins't a good parable. A category that has devolved from a way that admins honor other admins by placing them in it to a butt of jokes by non admins and a source of hard feelings when POINT makers insist on acting out isn't a good category. Wish it weren't so, but I fear that the time when the English Wikipedia was a small enough community that this worked has passed. Will the world end without this category? No. Will the project end? No. Will I go away? No. But still, it is the community that has failed the category, and not the other way round. So then, with regret, Delete. cue The Times They Are a-Changin' ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The times changed a long time ago Lar. They changed when admins started to care more about internal struggles, their own status and selected individual editors rather than responding to the concerns of the community. User:Valentinian, a hugely productive editor, left over a month ago because of the deteriorating working conditions that no one is/was doing anything about. He didn't make a big deal out of it so no one cared except me andf a few other fellow Danes here. To even talk about a badge of honor for dealing with disruptive editors when things have evolved the way they have simply makes no sense. This isn't "the admins vs the trolls" any longer simply because we can no longer rely on the admins to take care of the issues we face. Like it or not the admins and non-admins are in this together and until you realize that we cannot take this category seriously. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am terrifically sorry to see Valentinan has stopped editing, he was one of the good guys. I always tried to respond when he brought issues to my attention, ever since I first became an admin (ask me about the "swedish meatballs are not as good as danish meatballs" POV war sometime). Do people have bad days? sure. Are there some bad apples? sure. That's been the case from the start and always will be the case. But if you think ALL admins care more about things other than responding to the needs of the project, we all might as well hang it up. I don't think things are bad as all that. That's not quite the same as acknowledging that things have changed. Things can be different without necessarily being better, or worse. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always found this kind of humor uncomfortable, and if this category (to which someone once added me, presumably as a joke) wasn't there, the encyclopedia would not suffer one bit. If you need a deletion reason, I'd say it's "File under juvenilia (community growth)". --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
break 5
edit
  • Delete per my stance that, just like we don't allow jokes in mainspace, we shouldn't allow jokes in the category space. The userbox should be sufficient to convey the joke; categories on the other hand should actually be helpful to the project. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or delete all of Wikipedia due to historical inability to stop people from making tits of themselves everywhere else. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not standardize for no specific reason. Snowolf How can I help? 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Putting Lar and John's disruptive behavior to the side, the joke is not in good taste. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's immature, in bad taste, a walled garden among administrators, it has become a drama magnet, and is overall not the sort of thing that we should be doing here. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and (as a rouge admin) I'll block anyone who !votes "delete". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neil and rename "Rogue" Admins, as "Rouge" is a color - Also fix the images, as the spelling is all fuxed up there, too. Stop the bullshit drama over anything containing humor, exaggerating situations to skew the circumstances. Instead, go be constructive. Lara❤Love 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to hopefully clarify this once and for all, the misspelling "rouge" was intentional, to make fun of old complaints against admins from people who spelled the word wrong. I still think this category should be deleted, but it's been bothering me seeing everyone thinking this is an unintentional misspelling. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:14, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Lapinmies and others. We can have humour on Wikipedia, but when it goes out of hand.. thats it. The Helpful One (Review) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, divisive, and unfunny. What are the admins categorizing themselves as "rouge" are trying to say? "Look at me, I am an admin with a complete disregard for rules"? Ha-ha, I am ROFLing... not. Use userboxes if you are so inclined to show a bad sense of humor, but don't make a whole category just for that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is obviously meant to be humorous, but I really don't understand the edit war started when a "user adds himself to a category that identifies himself as an admin when he is not". This category should have no official status. I am stunned that a user was 3RR blocked for a small non-harmful addition to his userspace. How about a merge with Category:Rouge_editors or instead the category should be protected? If neither, there is no need whatsoever for an admin to get trigger-happy with the block button if an 'edit war' breaks out over a non-admin adding themselves to this category again. EJF (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC). change to strong delete - after carefully thinking this through, this category only generates ill-will. The fact that so many people are voting for keep and not giving a reasoned argument rather than I like it, or it doesn't do any harm - when in fact it did Equazcion harm. EJF (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason for one unfortunate incident to sour us on a longstanding part of Wikipedia culture. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves no practical purpose. Guest9999 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anybody is getting blocked because of this silly and useless category then it should be deleted. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No real convincing reasons for deletion given. Lots of things cause pointless drama, it seems like en.wp can't get anything done without pointless drama anymore. Seriously, we probably have thousands of user categories, why would you put yourself into one that doesn't describe you? I don't live in Africa, therefore it would make no sense for me to put Category:Wikipedians in Africa on my userpage. Do I put it on my page and then make a huge deal out of it (Not fair! Too Afro-centric! Category-equality for all!) when people tell me to take it off? No, that would be stupid. If you are seriously offended because people don't want you to put yourself into a category that doesn't describe you at all, you really need to realign your priorities here. Mr.Z-man 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep zomg drama. If you need a real reason: the case made for deleting the humor category is not convincing, and is based on a mountain made out of a molehill. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, amusing when not taken seriously. Don't attempt restrict to admins. If a non-admin wants to use it, who gives a shit? I certainly don't; as long as they're not using it to misrepresent themselves in serious discussions (Although who on earth would use "I r a rouge admin" as a credential in a serious discussion, I don't bloody know). Or maybe just rename the stupid thing to "rouge editor" for equality purposes, although that's not nearly as common a Wikimeme. Apologies should be immediately issued to Equazcion for the ludicrous drama of the block if they have not been already, and we should all move the fuck along. ♠PMC♠ 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
proposed alternative
edit

I can't claim credit for this as I saw someone else suggest it. I believe it was User:Lar who had said that the main problem is that Category:Rouge admins is a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia administrators. What if we just remove it from that category? That way it would actually be a straight joke, with no technical admin connotation.

The only question is, would this remedy cause the pertinent admins to regard the category as a pure joke, or would they still throw a fit if it's "misused"? If so, perhaps a slight rename, in conjunction with the above, would do the trick. Point being, I personally don't necessarily have a problem with joke categories, as long as they are actually regarded as such, without exception. So I'd be open to whatever needs to be done towards that end. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:39, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If the main problem is that the category is categorized correctly, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem to discuss here. Kusma (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point, of course, was that if this is intended as a joke, then perhaps it shouldn't be in a category that is supposed to imply something serious. And yes it is something to discuss here, since its status as a joke is seems to be pivotal in this discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Category talk:Rouge admins proposing removal from the admin-cat-tree. I say discussion, it don't seem to have had much activity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to break it off from the main admin category. Although it is a joke, it is only for admins. The fact that one non-admin found it appropriate to add himself to a category that results in his userpage giving the impression that he is an admin, and then ignoring admins that tell him it's inappropriate, is not a good reason for yet another pointless proposal to delete a joke. Not everyone gets every joke, so you can't base it off of "some people don't get it, so it fails." Neg. It's a joke admin category that is obviously for admin use only. If someone can't grasp that and has to popped in the head with a clue-by-four in the form of a 24-hour block, then that's not something you can fault the category for. Lara❤Love 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, one could legitimately ask why "admin joke categories" seem to be immune from the standards applied to "non-admin joke categories", and whether having different standards in this way is beneficial. I would also point out that until the recent events, there was nothing on the category page that made it obvious it was for admins only. What was obvious was that it was a joke, one in very poor taste, but a joke nonetheless. Nothing whatsoever to suggest that it was a private joke for the élite only. And I think I am right in saying that "it's funny" or "I like it" are normally not accepted reasons for keeping anything. If the admn-cat-tree is meant to be taken seriously, it should not have joke admin cats in it. If, on the other hand, one is not meant to take the admin-cat-tree seriously, then by all means populate it with jokes. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Case for the defense?
edit

Lets turn this argument around, other than I like it, Its funny and its an Admin thing is there a reason for this category to exist? (Hypnosadist) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I understand it, being a member of the Rouge Admin category used to be something of a badge of honour, and admins did not add themselves to the category. IF it were returned to that basis, and suitable explanation provided, and IF a similar rationale could exist for non-admin editors to be added to Rouge Non-Admins, then there might be some case that could be made for its retention. It could be useful to have a category of admins to approach who are more likely to stop, listen, and decide on principle by using WP:IAR if necessary, rather than going to one of the admins who is addicted to detailed policy wordings. The equivalent non-admin cat would then be for editors who have brushed aside policy impediments to get the best outcome for the encyclopedia. Actually, they could even be combined to make a Rouge Wikipedians category. As an alternative, some sort of Honour Board where any editor could add an admin (plus an equivalent for non-admins, or a joint board) might be less divisive. It would need to have a rationale for adding someone, so that it had some genuine meaning. I could even suggest a comparable Lemon Board, but I think that might be a little too divisive! Jay*Jay (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with a joint category but it needs to emphasize that we are in this together. I suspect the rouge editors category will get deleted together with whatever other categories were created in response to this so the creation of a joint category focusing on actual issues and those who have dealt with those issues regardless of their status would be a welcome change of attitude. Heck, some of us might even start to feel appreciated enough to return to main space editing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a slightly unrelated comment: As much as that was a joke, you don't need to wait for admins to appreciate you in order to edit the mainspace (it probably won't happen anyway). Just because they act disruptively doesn't mean your contributions are going unappreciated by everyone else. We don't edit for admins; We edit for Wikipedians. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:35, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
        • Agree about the appreciation (but not about the source of disruption, you've got the wrong end of the stick on that). But I'll go farther. The two people you should be editing for are "yourself" and "the little girl in the Congo on her hand cranked laptop" who needs the knowledge you have to impart. Editing to get accolades from others, be they whoever, may not be effective. Accolades are spotty. Sometimes you get them and sometimes you don't. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah Lar, because little girls in Congo totally have laptops. Bye. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is that a serious comment? I know some people like to assume all of Africa is nothing but jungles filled with lions and hippos, but even the Congo has places like Kinshasa. And yes, they have laptops. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comment was metaphorical but the goal of this project is to make the sum of the world's knowledge available to all, including those who would otherwise not have access. As for those little girls getting their laptops, read up on OLPC XO, it's not a 100 USD laptop, yet, but it's closer than anyone ever came before. My point stands... write for the readers, and for your own personal gratification, not for recognition, accolades, whatever, from others. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one said anything about accolades. When EconomicsGuy originally made his "feel appreciated" comment, I really don't think he was stating his wish to be awarded compliments or barnstars. He was referring to a more general feeling, perhaps one he gets when situations like this arise, that people who otherwise work hard on this encyclopedia (ahem) get the bum's rush for stupid little reasons. I agree, to a point, in that it would be nice if appreciation were shown (in, again, an abstract way), at least in a refrain from hindrance, as it often feels like certain people have a mindset that only serves to create obstacles for constructive editors. But again, obstacles will come from all around, no one is purely good, even your supposed allies, and that's something you just have to deal with, on Wikipedia and in life. So remember all the people you're doing this for, whoever they might be, and try to imagine that they appreciate what you're doing. And remember Jimbo, who appreciates you because you make him rich :) Equazcion •✗/C • 00:35, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
                • Thank you Equazcion that was exactly what I meant. AuburnPilot I know that but do you think they care that Equazcion added himself to this? I somehow don't think so. Those fortunate enough to have access care about the articles. And yes they do have laptops and Internet access. But they don't care about personal vendettas, hours after hours wasted on stupid debates about silly issues or who is in the "we don't need appreciation but here is our badge of honor" category which you defend with disruptive blocks. No, they care why George W. Bush needs semi-protection when there are 1400 admins to patrol the place, they care why so many articles lack references when so many people have to care if Equazcion added himself to a category and they care why people who are so much better off than themselves can't get along but needs to pursue personal vendettas to make themselves feel important. Once they have thought about that for long enough they simply walk away. So tell me, how are we helping the little girl in Congo who needs access to accurate information for free? I didn't ask for your barn stars, pats on the back or access to your exclusive club. Don't want it, don't need it. I simply ask that you realize that like it or not we are in this together - because that little girl in Congo simply doesn't care about these ridiculous disputes and personal vendettas. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it for then Ned? (Hypnosadist) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are admins editors? (alternatively, "Arbitrary Break 6")
edit
  • Delete - Are admins not editors? If not, then there is a class system. If so, then the category for Rouge Editors would be sufficient for all without all the stupid WikiDrama that surrounds the admin category only being for admins. I see this as pretty simple... Either all Wikipedians are created equal and we only need a "Rouge Editors" category, or there is a class system with the upper-class (snobby?) admins and the peasant non-admin editors (like me, proud peasant). Why have the double-standard of two otherwise identical categories? VigilancePrime (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with VigilancePrime. Admins are editors just like the rest of us, except with other 'powers' to help keep the wiki in order (or give in maintenance) . They are still editors so we should all be treated the same. A quick read of WP:ADMIN shows this...
  • Comment: Agree too. This is a good statement of the heart of the issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:02, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • such as being part of a joke category? that an admin action? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:20, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will emphasise the sentence again! From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Although administrative actions are not the same thing as editorial actions as you said, it doesn't mean that you should say that you are a subgroup... exactly like WP:ADMIN says. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes, that's why people want to become admins, so they can be part of the special subgroup that can add themselves to admin categories. By that logic, we should not have Category:Wikipedia administrators. What I mean is: how can one be a "rouge admin," when they couldn't do any rouge admin actions if they wanted to. Yes its a joke category., but its not funny if it doesn't make any sense. Something is seriously wrong with the train of thought of some of the people commenting here. The category is called "Rouge admins". If you aren't an admin, how is it funny to add yourself to the category? Mr.Z-man 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You contradict yourself. If it's funny to proclaim you're a "rouge" admin when it's not possible to be one, it should be all the more funny to proclaim you're a "rouge admin" when you're not even an admin. Either way, you're saying that you're something you're not. That's the source of the humor. Besides which, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't funny. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:21, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not applying IAR to admin actions. I'm applying IAR to the contention that you must be an admin in order to identify yourself as one -- not that I even agree that this category identifies oneself as an admin, nor that there is even a rule saying you're not allowed to identify as such. But, even if there were such a rule, IAR. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:44, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. While the tools granted to administrators are technical and do not convey authority per se, administrators are people that are entrusted with, if not used properly, very harmful tools. is directly from WP:ADMIN and then Jimbo's comment:

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry
The Helpful One (Review) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How manifestly disruptive must a category be before we realize that it's not worth the "humor" value? Non-admins have their humor categories regularly deleted. And frankly, this one stopped being funny when it started being used as a license to ignore any and all criticism. Hubris from admins is too deleterious for me to find amusing at the moment. To the many good admins in the category, please realize it doesn't take very many bad eggs to ruin the omelet. I'm sorry that your brunch was ruined. --JayHenry (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I counted right (this is mostly about headcount, right?) it's 22 k vs 6 d among admins, and 4 k vs 21 d among non-admins. Wow. Looks like Kbdank is right after all: "This won't be deleted, period. Someone might as well close it now, so it can go to DRV and get endorsed. The admins want their toys, the admins will have their toys." Good thing our admins are more mature than the rest of us. User:Dorftrottel 20:29, February 15, 2008
    • I'm glad someone other than me brought this up, as I've been keeping a similar count. Show of hands, who predicted this outcome before voting even began? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:33, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if that's the case about the votes, how about we get somebody other than admins and non-admins such as Jimbo himself to get into the discussion? The Helpful One (Review) 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jimbo is an admin. User:Dorftrottel 20:53, February 15, 2008
          • I'm more concerned about the closing. Is it really fair that an admin will be closing this? What other possibilities are there? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:57, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
            • Who said anything about fair? User:Dorftrottel 21:10, February 15, 2008
            • Actually if an admin is going to do it I would suggest someone like Newyorkbrad if he wants the job. At least we know that he will see this from both sides. There is no way this is going to be 100% fair anyway - the best we can hope for is a closer with the guts to support a merge of the two categories. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was actually toying with suggesting User:DGG. He's consistently been the most neutral person I know of, admin or otherwise. Even the admins have attested to that in the past. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:24, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
      • So admins aren't a special subgroup, and are just a part of the community except when we're counting votes? Mr.Z-man 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question is how they consider themselves, not what they are. The voting statistic in this discussion appears to show a clear weight of admins vs. regular folks, so closing by an admin hardly seems fair. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:28, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)
        • Across the social strata, the opinions are equally divided, which means no consensus. The fact that some admins are voting, some even without providing any rationale or simply parotting the strawman argument regarding the incident —which was the occasion but not the reason for this discussion— is nevertheless appalling. User:Dorftrottel 21:39, February 15, 2008
  • Delete, per Newyorkbrad in the first MFD for WP:ROUGE, "In a perfect world, this would be Keep, but it's just not worth having edit wars and quarrels repeatedly break out over a humor essay."[1] It's just not worth having more ridiculous ANI threads and more ridiculous blocks over a lame joke category. No editor would ever have any need to look up a list of "rouge admins" — whether you personally find it funny or not. The category serves no actual purpose and it's disruptive and divisive. If admins want to have a little "fun" and joke about cabals and/or typos, they still have WP:ROUGE (for now) and that delightful IRC channel. Making WP:ROUGE appear like a clique is a Bad Idea™. The part about the "Rouge Admin Cabal" "[blocking] people at random" in WP:SPIDER is not so funny in light of that trainwreck ANI thread. And this CFD better not be closed like that MFD was. The joke's over. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "In a perfect world, this would be Deleted, but it's just not worth having deletion quarrels repeatedly break out over a humor essay.--Docg 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify to WP:ROUGE. I think there are a few points on which (almost) everyone can agree:
  1. Category:Rouge admins and Wikipedia:Rouge admins are related pages, but they are not inseparable.
  2. The continued existence of this category is controversial.
  3. This category is claimed to exist for the purpose of humour rather than to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration or administration/maintenance; however, not everyone finds it to be humorous.
From the standpoint of a cost-benefit analysis, the costs of the continued existence of this category outweigh the benefits. The continued existence of the category is likely to be a source of tension and/or drama; the benefits, however, are nonexistent. The humour of the phrase "rouge admin" is found at WP:ROUGE, not in this category. Deleting the category does not result in deletion of the "joke"; it will only result in the removal of the various bottom-of-the-page notices. (Note that there is ample precedent that categories - whether for user pages or articles - should not merely be bottom-of-the-page notices.) Black Falcon (Talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have been keeping out of this, because as an admin I have never considered adding myself to the category. I am concerned that joke categories for admins are being preserved while those for non-admins are being deleted. I think we have now reached the point when all joke categories should be deleted. Anyway, it not the category that is the joke, assuming something is funny about all this. The joke is the article Wikipedia:Rouge admin itself and the template Template:User rouge that an admin can put on their user page. Those should stay but the category is not funny in itself and serves no useful purpose. Let us delete it and leave it at that with no drama at deletion review or anywhere else. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a Rouge Wikipedians category - preferebly with entry by nomination by others. Failing having a RW category, simply delete. The stratification associated with the existence of admins should be minimised as much as possible, and the fact that we ended up having a user blocked over this just demonstrates how silly this whole situation has become. If this were truly still about a joke, that block would never have happened. As for someone to close this, I would agree that Newyorkbrad would be a good choice, although he may be seen as having a COI having commented in the earlier CfD MfD. It does need to be someone with the near-unanimous respect and support of the community. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Rouge_admin_(3rd_nomination) Alexfusco5 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any arguments for this category
edit

Lets turn this argument around, other than I like it, Its funny and its an Admin thing is there a reason for this category to exist?

I asked the above question and got no answers. So i'm trying again because wikipedia is not a democracy so it does not matter how many admins vote keep, you are providing no reasons why this insulting and drama making Cat needs to exists while those of use who want it gone have provided lots of policy reasons. (Hypnosadist) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think it's fair to note that while the main argument boils down to "it's fun", roughly half the people here don't agree to that, which means the point is moot regardless of the other half who enjoy the funniness of it. Also, as Bduke pointed out above, the funniness functions primarily via Wikipedia:Rouge admin and the template. The category is a whole other story and I've yet to see an argument that demonstrates how the (in itself rather questionable, regarding the current 50:50 situation) funniness is linked to the category in particular, and how the essence of it couldn't be retained via the essay and userbox. User:Dorftrottel 13:37, February 16, 2008
Spartaz did you read what i posted? This is exactly what i'm complaining about. What policies support your position? (Hypnosadist) 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course voting is evil and in an ideal world my vote would be discarded by the closing admin because it adds nothing. The trouble with long xFDs like this one is that all the useful arguments get used up in the first section and the remaining 40odd contributions are effectively metoos. In a conventional assessment of strength of argument this doesn't matter but long lengthy debates also need the closing admin to gauge the strength of community support for each position. Hence my vote. Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then atleast do a Support according to X's arguements. (Hypnosadist) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Hypnosadist. You say you it's about "gaug[ing] the strength of community support for each position", so which particular position(s) do you support? User:Dorftrottel 15:23, February 17, 2008
The keep one of course. Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you have no actual opinions on the arguements so your VOTE does not count. (Hypnosadist) 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's worse: it does... User:Dorftrottel 16:13, February 17, 2008
Seriously though, it's disppointing to see an admin try and turn this into a linguistic game. In the context of my comment, "position" obviously includes the reasoning or rationale that leads someone to take a general stance on an issue. So? User:Dorftrottel 16:19, February 17, 2008

Hypnosadist: You're unlikely to get an answer. I asked the same question three days ago without getting an answer, and I asked two months ago when the user category was last proposed for deletion, and never got an answer then either. The problem is that too many people (especially admins who should know better) appear to be unable to separate the concept of (user) categories from essays and userboxes. The category is not the source of the amusement, but (as the block on Equazcion demonstrated) it is the source of the problem. Deleting it will eliminate the source of the strife, and eliminate the need for the (newly created) Category:Rouge editors. Horologium (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but i'll keep asking the question. (Hypnosadist) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, blaming a category rather then the blocking admin for a disputed block is, well, interesting to say the least. Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the block had not been supported by several admins on the ground that it is admin-only, your argument might be more persuasive. Quite a number of admins cited supporting the block for precisely that reason, not for edit-warring. When someone gets blocked, it's not funny. Horologium (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosadist: I'm sorry you didn't see my response as relevant to the question posed. I was trying to suggest a way in which the category could possibly be modified so it served some (arguably) legitimate purpose. Implicit in my answer was that, at present, I believe the answer to your question is 'No'. It is divisive in that it is elevating admins 'above' editors which policy does not support. It is causing disruption (ie that recent block) and drawing attention away from encyclopedia building (per the active discussion here). Whilst the user box and essay are fine, the category should go. Hopefully this is a clearer response. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a clear answer Jay. (Hypnosadist) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting that Template:Rouge, which is touted as an alternative to Template:User rouge, doesn't invoke any categories. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recap
edit

This is a 4-day recap of the discussion above. Please see Template:Recap for important information about this notice, especially if you plan to edit its content.
This is not the place to make original arguments.

This template was originally posted by: Equazcion •✗/C • 06:40, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)


Putting this here as an attempt at compromise. I do not endorse the content or format of this template. --Tony 18:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • moved from main page
As a matter of interest how many of those voting to keep are members of this Cat, and is that a CoI. (Hypnosadist) 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a vote count, or was the discussion actually read? Can whoever closes this take into account that while I didn't add a bold delete to my comments, that is indeed what I wanted. --Kbdank71 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add yourself to the delete list then. (Hypnosadist) 13:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Kbdank71 and Tony Sidaway, whose comment after arbitrary break 4 clearly supports deletion. Horologium (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kbdank71, I apologize for not adding you, I just didn't want to take it upon myself to interpret those remarks, lest I be wrong. Anyone who feels they've been mis-listed or left out can of course do whatever fixing is necessary. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:47, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

The recap was removed by Tony Sidaway. Is anyone in agreement with that? I only added it because I thought it was useful in such a long discussion. If no one else agrees I'm fine with it being removed, but I just wanted to get other opinions. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be restored - it was a useful summary and presently in a balanced way. I would have questioned the removal on Tony Sidaway's talk page, but that has already been done. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that one of the comments removed by Tony, made by Horologium and seen here has not been restored. I note that the edit summary says the recap template was "extremely unwikipedian". Jay*Jay (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Tony actually cares about discusion not voting then he should berate the umpteen admins who have voted as opposed to discussing this issue. Re-add the template. (Hypnosadist) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored that other comment Tony removed, thanks for pointing that out. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:14, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I'm re-adding the template below for now, but if anyone else objects please let me know. Let's please discuss it next time rather than simply removing it. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:19, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Can you add whether the user is an admin or non admin as well please? --The Helpful One (Review) 15:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really possible currently as the template isn't written for that. Besides I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate. There's a script I use to help out with that though, try adding this to your monobook.js: importScript('User:Ais523 non-admin/adminrights.js'); And this to your monobook.css: .ais523_adminrights_admin {background-color:#D0E3FF !important}Equazcion •✗/C • 15:27, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has remmoved himself from the list of those in favour of deletion in the recap template below. The closing admin might thus like to note that his comment from above: I've always found this kind of humor uncomfortable, and if this category (to which someone once added me, presumably as a joke) wasn't there, the encyclopedia would not suffer one bit. If you need a deletion reason, I'd say it's "File under juvenilia (community growth)" should not be read as supporting the deletion. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Tony only removed himself from the template because he doesn't want people to think he supports use of the template itself, since he has nominated it for deletion -- which isn't really sound thinking, in my opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:40, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has listed this template below for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 17#Template:Recap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the template, I believe its presence can only mislead those who are participating in the discussion, and I wish you hadn't created it. I encourage all those whose usernames were included without permission below to remove themselves from the list so as to prevent this malignant and damaging influence on the discussion gaining any currency. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "malignant and damaging influence" is the Rouge Admins Category. (Hypnosadist) 15:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to support (as I do) the deletion of both this category and the recap template. They are entirely different things. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the "malignant and damaging influence" that this template is having on the discussion is to make absolutely clear the divisiveness of the category under discussion - with those in favour of its retention being primarily admins, and those in favour of its deletion being primarily non-admins. This fact may not be palatable, but don't blame the template - blame the other admins who created this issue by acting in a way guaranteed to provoke a response. Also, and as I have noted in the deletion discussion, this template summarises the arguments advanced by those of differing opinions, making weighing those arguments easier, and making it much easier for someone joining the discussion late to recognise if the policy concern they have has been raised and recognised. Making community involvement in deletion discussion easier and consesnsus more transparent may be uncomfortable for admins who want to be able to substitute their own opinions for the consensus in closing discussions, but that is hardly a reason to prevent it from happening. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you've made it clear that the primary purpose of using the template on this occasion is polemical and to promote division between admins and non-admins, I am removing it again. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about it's meant to illustrate the apparent existence of that division? User:Dorftrottel 18:12, February 17, 2008
Tony, I said no such thing. The template is not promoting division. It is merely making crystal clear that the division already exists. You are trying to shoot the messenger, but that won't change the message. You have also now removed the recap twice and nominated the template for deletion. Perhaps you might like to read WP:3RR again, because you are moving awfully close to a blockable dsruption of this CfD. Jay*Jay (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By pointing out a division between editors of different types, one cannot help but promote those divisions as significant. This is why I say that it's a divisive template (just as the category who deletion we're discussing is evidently divisive to some extent). Since we can't agree on the appropriateness of the use of this template, might I suggest that it be place on the talk page of this discussion? It is not productive to threaten an editor with bogus threat of blocking under the "three revert rule". --Tony 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, as you would be well aware, I have zero ability to institute a block, so saying I made a threat is dubious (at best). The sequence, to this point, is as follows: you unilaterally removed the recap (plus other editors posts) from this discussion; you were challenged about this on your talk page; Equazcion asked whether there was any support for your removal; Following comments that it should be restored, Equazcion did so; you nominated the template for deletion; there was continued discussion during which not a single post was made supporting your removal of the template; you unilaterally removed it for a second time with a specious rationale based on a misreading of my comment. If you think your actions sound like consensus building, or that they are supported, then you are mistaken. You have made clear your objection to the template. Your pointy removal of it for a second time is not constructive. Remember that WP:3RR does not give a blanket right to three reverts. I have acted in good faith in indicating to you that your actions could be seen as a disruption; you have the right to ignore my view if you choose. As for the argument that pointing out divisions is akin to promoting them as significant, you are again trying to blame the messenger. The divisions exist irrespective of the recap template. They have been noted by others above. Admins and non-admins have (generally) adopted opposite positions on the category under discussion. I expect that virtually everyone contributing to this thread knows this is the case. The template did not create the division and it is unlikely to encourage anyone to change sides. It simply summarises the policy arguments advanced, and lists the people who have advocated one (or more) of the explanations offered. It really shouldn't be that concerning. Jay*Jay (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:User_categories_for_discussion#Recap_of_listing_for_Category:_Rouge_admins, done by Tony The Helpful One (Review) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah anyone should feel free to restore it to the bottom here. Tony says he's done this as a compromise, but a compromise between him and what basically looks like everyone else so far is hardly a compromise that needs to be imposed. I'd do it myself but I already restored it once, and I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:55, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I support the move so that makes 2. Frankly the signal to noise ratio of this discussion is reaching the point where no admin will close it either way. I'd suggest that if you want a result you just leave it be for the moment. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As there now seems to be consensus on the removal of the user tallies from the template, and that has been done, I no longer think it needs to be deleted in its present form. I would support the moving of this particularly cluttered and (sadly) acrimonious metadiscussion on Template:Recap to the talk page, and the now potentially useful template may perhaps be used here. --Tony 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving this discussion to the talk page, and moving the recap back here in its place. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:53, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
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.

February 11

edit

Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) club team fans

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 per nom. Per Football team, Football club (a redirect to football team) is a synonym. So "club team" is redundant. - jc37 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) club team fans to Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans
Speedy merge: Redundant, unnecessary intermediate level of categorisation. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right ... it probably was a little premature of me to open this discussion while the other was ongoing. After all, if the scope of the Feb. 7 nomination was expanded, this discussion would become moot. However, I really intended this to be a minor speedy fix (as a matter of fact, I'll move it to the speedy section). Black Falcon (Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Sault Ste. Marie

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

The result of the discussion was speedy merge. VegaDark (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Sault Ste. Marie to Category:Wikipedians in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Speedy merge: redundant categories; the main article is located at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 10

edit

Category:Eurasian 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 - jc37 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The concept of race, as applied to humans, is a vague and mostly subjective social construct. According to the article Race (classification of human beings):

The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time...

Thus, the classification "Eurasian" can and does mean different things to different people. For example, someone who is one-sixteenth Japanese and fifteen-sixteenths Slavic may consider him/herself Asian, Eurasian, European, or none of the three. More generally, a grouping of users on the basis of a characteristic as broad and undefined as race does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, because it does not tell use anything about the ability or willingness of an editor in the category to collaborate on certain aspects of the encyclopedia. (Note that we do not actually have - nor do I think we should have - a "Wikipedians by race" classification scheme.)

  • I'm not trying to argue that editors should be prohibited from self-identifying as Eurasian. However, they can (and do) do so via userboxes and typed statements; there is no need to create and maintain a list of Eurasian users. Categories should not merely be "bottom-of-the-page" notices. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything in WP:MYSPACE that applies to this category (which has been used way too often, and out of context, on uCfD). I would have no problem with "Wikipedians by race", if people choose to make that known. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors

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 (12 days later...) - Too many coments/suggestions going in different directions to determine a clear consensus. - jc37 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors - Potentially all-inclusive category. And likely to grow larger and larger every day. (And how does one non-subjectively define the criteria for inclusion?) Anyone looking to collaborate with someone knowledgeable about Good articles, need merely drop a note on that talk page. - jc37 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question: How useful? If I make a one-word addition to a good article, doesn't that make me a contributor? Take Atom, for example, a recently listed good article. In the last 150 edits, there are well over 20 separate contributors. How many more are there in the entire history? How many more for all of the good articles out there? And every day, there would be more contributors as more and more people edit good articles. How useful is that? Are you really interested in collaborating with just about everyone? Can you really tell me this is anything more than editors wanting to toot their own horns? --Kbdank71 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How useful? On a scale of 1 to 17 it has a usefulness rating of 11.4 in my estimation :) Is your point that users can frivolously and unhelpfully add themselves to user categories? Certainly true, but nothing unique to this category. Perhaps separate the category from the userbox if that's a concern. Say with this user category (true for other big categories as well), if I had a question about Good Articles, I have encountered hundreds of editors and don't know off the top of my head which of them are interested or familiar with the GA process. Now I can look through the category to find an editor who I am comfortable approaching. As I said above, the category could (and maybe should) be further sub-categorized by more specific interest. How about we leave a note at GA talk encouraging them to do this? --JayHenry (t) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think merging may obscure the scope of the proposed target category. This category is for editors who contribute to good articles, whereas the other category is for users who contribute to the GA process as reviewers, nominators, writers, or something else. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by text editor

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 (12 days later...) - It looks like this needs to be split up into separate noms (Emacs in particular) in order for consensus to be found. - jc37 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by text editor
Category:Wikipedians who use gedit
Category:Wikipedians who use Vim
Category:Wikipedians who use Textpad
Category:Wikipedians who use TextMate
Category:Wikipedians who use Nano
Category:Wikipedians who use Kate
Category:Wikipedians who use jEdit
Category:Wikipedians who use Emacs
While each has its own set of "bells and whistles", it shouldn't matter which editor is used, even as External editors. A userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you seem to have missed his point. This has nothing to do with making a battle on Wikipedia, he's just pointing to an article that offers some insight on user preferences. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must be missing something. What criteria is it being deleted under? (Other than the nom's comment "it shouldn't matter") A quick search of en.wikipedia.org for the string "Wikipedians_who_are" shows that pretty much all such categories of this type are of the "I think it shouldn't matter" variety. --Gronky (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basic criterion under which user categories are judged is: Does a grouping of users on a certain characteristic facilitate coordination and collaboration amongst users for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia? Black Falcon (Talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to justify keeping the categories for any editor which has a significant amount of related content in Wikipedia. For Emacs, there are five detailed articles plus about seven medium length articles on derivatives. For vi and vim there's probably similar. So those two should stay. For the other editors, you may be right that facilitating communication between their users cannot lead to any significant contribution to Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of the by-interest categories. Then yes, I agree that the "Wikipedians who use Emacs" category should be renamed to "Wikipedians interested in Emacs". How do we signal this new suggestion to the closing admin? For want of knowing better: HEY CLOSING ADMIN :-)
  • (Emacs is indeed free software, but a merge to "interested in free software" would be too broad - free software has 100 million users while emacs probably has less than 100thousand.) --Gronky (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EMACS cat can be moved as a subcat of the free software interest cat, not a straight merge into it. I agree that interest in EMACS and interest in free software are not necessarily the same thing, but it is a subset. Horologium (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see this as anything more than "look at me, I use x". Especially when a reason to keep is "People think their editor is important". Well, of course they do, but that doesn't mean you need a category for it. --Kbdank71 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Although there a number of articles related to some text editors, such as Emacs, the fact of merely using a particular text editor does not imply an interest in or ability to contribute to articles related to that editor. That is, just because someone uses a particular text editor does not automatically mean that they want to write about that editor. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This one is actually appropriate to contributing to the encyclopedia. Seeing who uses what in selecting how one wishes to work around here can be a very valuable thing to do. Given the deficiencies of the internal editor, I might well want to ask others about their experiences. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedians with negative experiences with the internal editor? Sounds awful close to being a "Support/Oppose" category. ("Deficiency" is, of course, subjective to the preferences of the users in question, I would presume.) In addition, the current categories don't specify that this is how the editors edit Wikipedia, merely that they have a preference for using a certain editor over other editors. - jc37 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? This isn't about what you're contributing, but how. Would you honestly say to someone, "Wow, I sure would like to help you write that article, but you're using Textpad, sorry. I only collaborate with people who use gedit." No, you wouldn't. What people say is ultimately more important than the tool they use to say it. So I ask, how is this information valuable? --Kbdank71 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? DGG said knowing who uses what is valuable. I asked how so. (Yeah, I know, I also said some other stuff. If you wish, ignore that and concentrate on the questions I asked) --Kbdank71 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion of the category doesn't remove the "information", useful or otherwise. It can still exist on someone's userpage. This is about the category grouping. - jc37 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should manually go out and check every single userpage in order to collect the same information? To claim that it's ok to delete a category, being used as a category, is ok because people can still individually state what they're doing. All that information isolated is pretty much worthless. The value comes when it's collected together, and in a manageable form. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between claiming that something is useful and being able to explain why or how it is useful. If one cannot do the latter, then there is generally no basis for the former. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then allow me to explain. Understanding how people work with Wikipedia, what tools they use, is very valuable information. At any given time someone can use these categories to contact users that use these different methods, to gain information that can be shared with others. I'm not sure how many people use these categories, but the number of users alone might be useful information. Not to mention that people often will make some sort of script or plug-in that works with a specific text editor, and would like to find a way to tell others about it (that is, one that is Wikipedia related). These things happen all the time for the browsers categories, and I see no reason to believe they don't have that potential for text editors. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to be in many "wikipedians who use foo" categories, but it was simply to let people know what I used. I didn't use them to broadcast how I edit related categories (because I didn't) or to show how helpful I would be if contacted (because I wouldn't have been if I had). I figured if someone had a question or wanted to collaborate, they'd get in contact with a wikiproject, or some other gathering place for people who actually wanted to help and had the knowledge to do so. These categories convey neither. Hell, I'm even in Category:Wikipedia administrators, but only because I am one, not because of my helping nature. If you want admin help, go to the admin noticeboard, not to me. And I will eat my hat if more than 10% of all wikipedians put themselves into a wikipedian category because they want to help. Most of them just got lumped in because they are using a userbox. And I will also guarantee that the vast majority of them wouldn't give a damn (or even notice) if the category that was attached to their userbox was removed from the template. --Kbdank71 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. I'm actually pretty curious what people use when they edit Wikipedia and how their experience is. I find the built-in editor pretty clunky myself. In a way I'm glad these got nominated because I didn't know they existed; now I can investigate this. But of course I hope they don't get deleted, because they certainly are useful. These aren't just more of the "look at me" myspace-type cats. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:10, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • I use UltraEdit to edit articles (by cutting and pasting) all the time because it has fairly powerful search/replace as well as macro capabilities. Although it is not a category under discussion I would get use from knowing who else uses UltraEdit so I could share tips/techniques or ask questions. (as I do for people who use Perl, Excel, etc. Rename them as you like, but keep the categories as they do foster collaboration. Not so much on the articles about the editors, but around the tools and techniques that they can bring to bear on editing articles about completely unrelated things. Unlike what brand of coffee you favour, what editor you use has a direct impact on the likelihood of my deciding to ask you a question about how to accomplish a particular tricky thing. The category is a better way of finding who might be a good person to ask than any other vehicle. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 9

edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in actors

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for "Wikipedians who favor certain actors and actresses". It is not especially useful as a parent category since there is ample precedent (see here) to delete "Wikipedians who like" categories for individuals, including actors and actresses, for having an overly narrow scope. It is not useful as a regular user category because it is too vague: "certain actors and actresses". In addition, favouring certain actors and actresses is not equivalent to having an encyclopedically-relevant interest in editing articles about them. I'm sure that many people favour George Clooney, Hugh Grant, Scarlett Johansson, and Nicole Kidman, but very few make substantial edit to those articles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Numberwang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category cannot facilitate encyclopedic collaboration since it lacks a head article. The category also has an overly narrow scope, since (even if a head article existed) any potential for collaboration would be limited to just one article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Despite its title, this category is actually populated primarily by transclusions and substitutions of a social-issue identification userbox that does not express an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject of the car-free movement. This category was created following the deletion of Category:Car-free Wikipedians (see discussion), and the same userbox that populated the deleted category now populates this one.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of Multiracial ancestry

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 - no consensus to delete. I suggest that there needs to be a broader discussion of the utility of racial self-categorisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians of Multiracial ancestry to Category:Multiracial Wikipedians
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, single-user category with a capitalisation issue ("multiracial" should be lower-case). – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo, which, what and who? Just too vague to be useful. - jc37 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. While I understand what JC37 is saying, I don't think I can agree with the link, which is part of a larger sociopolitical debate; this category does not, in and of itself, espouse any particular philosophy. Horologium (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's part of the problem. There simply is no specific criteria for inclusion. Is this a category of those whose parents had different skin colours? Those whose parents had distinctive facial features? And further, what about the generally accepted races themselves. Is there any collaborative use for someone who may be of American Indian and and Taiwanese ancestry to be grouped with someone of Western European and Latin American ancestry? This category is just a big melting pot of subjective additives. - jc37 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per JC. I'm not seeing how someone of two or more races would be able to collaborate on any article where a person of only one race would not. And it is pretty subjective. How far back can I go to show that I have more than one race in me? And what percentage must each be to be considered multiracial? --Kbdank71 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per jc37. (Both categories are tagged, so there should be no procedural problems with deletion, assuming there is consensus to do so.) In addition to the lack of defined criteria for inclusion, there is also the issue of usefulness. A grouping of multiracial users doesn't facilitate collaboration, and it seems to me that this category is little more than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. A deletion of the main category is procedurally inappropriate because it hasn't been nominated, and in very poor form given that race is an important issue to some people for self-identification, and telling someone of mixed race that race does not or should not exist is highly and aggressively POV. Wikidemo (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page, just as CFD, is a "Categories for discussion" page. It doesn't matter what the nominator intends. The closure is a result of consensus. And as both have been tagged, there is no reason why the categories can't be merged/deleted/renamed/whatever, depending on what the consensus is determined to be. - jc37 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's insisting that race does not or should not exist, nor that editors should not express their racial identification. Rather, the argument is that there is no need to maintain a list of multiracial Wikipedians, as such a grouping does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage

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 Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage to Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry - jc37 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage to Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Religious pluralist Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious pluralist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is much too vague to be able to faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. Religious pluralism can refer to "the worldview that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth", "the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different religions, or denominations within the same religion", and a condition of "religious tolerance". Thus, users in this category can be characterised by possession of a general philosophical belief, support for a general philosophical goal, support for a general philosophical principle or actual state of being, or any combination thereof.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Netflix

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Netflix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Grouping users by which video rental service they happen to use does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration.
  • Does shopping at a particular store give people an above-average ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about that store? ... This category is not comparable to the nationality and religion categories since it has a significantly narrower and more trivial scope. Moreover, a number of the "keep" arguments at the religion discussion revolve around the fact that deletion would be controversial; I doubt that anyone would be as emotional about the deletion of this category. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders

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

The result of the discussion was Merge Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders - jc37 03:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders
Nominator's rationale: The categories seem to have the same scope. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 8

edit

Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Ramayana

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Ramayana to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ramayana
Speedy rename to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by interest. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who collect challenge coins

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who collect challenge coins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obscure "collect" category, precedent to delete at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who collect Hello Kitties. Only one user despite existing for 15 months. I'm not sure we need any "who collect" categories, but certainly we don't need ones for uncommon things like this, or it would set precedent to keep any other "who collect" category. Additionally, this is only associated with a single article, making a category pointless. VegaDark (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: it is a single-user category (despite the fact that it has existed for 15 months) that has a relatively narrow scope. – Black Falcon (Talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kbdank71 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am positive that we have had a discussion about this category in the past, but I cannot find the discussion. I remember it because of a comment I made concerning challenge coins, as I have two of them (I don't collect them, but my last command had two varieties of challenge coins). I believe someone made the suggestion to merge it into coin collecting, which is not the same thing. FWIW, I'm neutral about the category, as many military personnel (especially those in Europe) have some of these coins; they seem to be especially popular with Air Force units. We have a lot of military types here, which might be a pool from which to draw cat members. With only one person in the cat right now, deletion is certainly reasonable, but I'd like to see it deleted without prejudice to recreation if enough users express interest. Horologium (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 7

edit

Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) fans

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus - Confusion over empty or not, and the late additions suggests to me that this should be relisted, starting over. Feel free to do so at editorial discretion. - jc37 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm seriously tempted not to state the obvious. Anyway: This category and its subcategories do not serve any encyclopedia-related purpose. User:Dorftrottel 21:39, February 7, 2008
  • Yes, all of the individual subcategories should be tagged if you want the entire category tree to be deleted, else any deletion would be overturned at WP:DRV (you can ask a bot operator to do it since there are so many -- Cydebot and AMbot do a lot of work with CFD). However, in light of the fact that this discussion has been open for four days and there was some initial confusion regarding its scope, it may be easier to wait until it's closed and start a new nomination then. Another option is to expand the nomination's scope, inform the participants, and relist the discussion to today's date... Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok thanks, I'll wait then and eventually open a proper discussion at a later point. User:Dorftrottel 18:14, February 11, 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lots of past precedent to delete categories that should include all Wikipedians by default, which this category does. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it is (unfortunately) true that this category would not include all Wikipedians by default, the vast majority are or should be -- a collaborative project cannot function if its members are not open to constructive criticism. So, the argument for the "un-usefulness" of the category is that it does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; if you're seeking something more concrete, then you're essentially asking for proof of nonexistence. Since we should not assume that something is useful until proven otherwise, I think the more feasible approach is to try to show how and whether it is useful. – Black Falcon (Talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikimania 2007 Users

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - All but one of the users were added to the category by this userbox. (And I'll leave a note on that person's talk page.) So no need to listify as one can do a WHATLINKSHERE on the userbox. (Though obviously anyone who wishes to listify "somewhere" - probably the Wikimania wiki would be best- is welcome to.) - jc37 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimania 2007 Users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can't see why categorizing this is useful, especially since it has already come and gone. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's just a list of people who may and may not have been going. A cat here makes the names accessible to en.wiki users who may wish to collaborate a bid locally at first - not everyone is going to go straight to the wikimania wiki at first. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians from Fox Chapel, PA

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Snowolf How can I help? 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Fox Chapel, PA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

According to Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania, "The population was 5,436 at the 2000 census". Only one user in the category despite existing for over 8 months. Too small of a location for a category, if we allowed categories for locations with this few people, that would set precedent for many thousands of similar categories. I think for cities below 50,000 people or so (or whatever consensus decides), categories should be deleted for the individual city and replaced with a category for the county (or in cases of other countries, whatever the equivelant is). In this case, the category would be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In this case, since there is only one user in the category, however, I wouldn't mind deletion either.

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

Category:Wikipedian donors to Wikipedia

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Snowolf How can I help? 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian donors to Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Don't see how categorizing this is useful unless the Wikimedia foundation plans on soliciting the people in the category for donations. Can't think of any encyclopedic reason to seek out donors, nor do I think it would be used since anyone can add themselves to the category, donor or not. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 6

edit

Category:Wikilibertarians

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikilibertarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Wikipedians who "generally have a hands-off philosophy about personal userpage content". I agree with this philosophy, but do not feel that this category (which itself does not qualify as userpage content) can foster encyclopedic collaboration. It seems to have fairly little to do with editing philosophy as it relates to articles (see Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy) and reflects an opinion about a fairly narrow aspect of Wikipedia. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Wikilibertarian Wikipedians to match the convention of its parent.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Egocentric Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Would have prefered not to close as I participated in this, but considering it was unanimous and considering the lack of admin activity at UCFD I find it necessary to close. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egocentric Wikipedians - Rationales should be obvious, but here's the most basic: there's no need for a category grouping of such Wikipedians. Those who wish to identify in this way may do so with a userpage notice (such as adding text, or a userbox). - jc37 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mom user templates

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material), see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Despite a title that suggests that this is a template category, the only content is a userpage. As a template category this would deserve separate consideration but would also be redundant to Category:Family user templates. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mom user templates to Category:Wikipedian moms
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in cat, from a userbox-like link on User:Geaugagrrl. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who listen to FM 103.2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to FM 103.2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. In addition, any possible collaborative merit is limited to just one article, so the category's scope is too narrow. Finally, the category contains only one user despite having existed for 17 months.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are armigerous

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are armigerous
This nomination also includes Category:Wikipedians who have arms from Canada, Category:Wikipedians who have arms from Scotland and Category:Wikipedians who have arms from the College of Arms
Nominator's rationale: These four categories (which, incidentally, include only one user) do not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Merely having a coat of arms does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in heraldry; in any case, there is Category:Wikipedians interested in heraldry for that.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who participated in YLA

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who participated in YLA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category does not offer opportunities for encyclopedic collaboration as the main article was deleted following this AfD discussion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are Silver Surfer fans

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Snowolf How can I help? 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are Silver Surfer fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is for fans of a single fictional character and the userbox that populates it does not exactly suggest any interest in collaboration. Since the title could refer to the version of the character in the comics, the film, the video game, or the TV series, a merge into Category:Wikipedians who read Marvel Comics may result in miscategorisation. If there is no consensus to delete, then rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Silver Surfer.
  • Delete as nom; else rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just because someone is a fan of a particular superhero does not imply they are interested in collaboration on the topics related to that superhero. For those who are, they should create an "interested in" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though I'll admit that if this was Batman or Superman (with reference to their many related articles), I might have said "keep". - jc37 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - Per Jc37, comic bigotry must not prevail! Also I'd note there are already several members and apparently they are already collaborating.Wjhonson (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Comic bigotry"? I was referring to the many articles directly related to those two characters. (Superman, even has his own WikiProject/Taskforce/whatever you want to call it.) SO, sorry - Silver Surfer doesn't even come close in quantity of articles. And so, no, no need for a category to group Wikipedians for collaborating on Silver Surfer. The page's talk page and/or edit history, works just fine for that. - jc37 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 5

edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

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

The result of the discussion was depopulate of users. Snowolf How can I help? 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in books - This isn't a nomination to delete the category, but rather to depopulate it for use only as a Wikipedia parent category. The cat is populated by several copies (and subst) of "This user is a bibliophile". Ok, so we use/love books. (Yes, I have the userbox too : ) - But I think this is too general a criteria to be useful as a category. (And is rather close to just being an example of an "identification"-based category.) Incidentally, the subcats are currently split into two category groups: by authors and by book series. - jc37 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Apprentice

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

The result of the discussion was Per Jc37 (me : ) - Since it was nearly unanimous (save one dissenter who supported "Delete all"), including the nominator, and since we have a backlog, I'm going to go ahead and ignore the guideline, and close this. - jc37 03:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amending closure: I removed Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Apprentice from User:UBX/The Apprentice, which says: "This user is a fan of The Apprentice." I intended to leave the category removed from this userbox, since it said "fan", and I didn't want to change the userbox text. Well, removing the category from the userbox, left the category empty. And I also removed Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Entourage from User:UBX/Entourage, which says: "This user says "Lets hug it out, bitches."", which left a single user in the category. Due to this, I'm deleting both, with no prejudice for creation of the "who like" versions suggested below, if enough interest is shown (but not by re-adding to the two userboxes listed, as neither suggest intention for collaboration). - jc37 04:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing with Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Redwall Series and Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Richard Sharpe series, deferring to the above. - jc37 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 5 user categories of "who are fans of" exist. The standard form for templates describing your interests to a book/TV show/band is "who like". ~Iceshark7 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
  • Comment - If I have to choose, I'll weakly lean towards "series" over "author" since that was the apparent intent of the cat creators. And from what I can tell from the edit history, the cat creator named the author of the book series, rather than the popular actor of the TV series, so leaning towards "who read...series" for that one as well. - jc37 01:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 4

edit

Category:Wikipedians with diabetes

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Snowolf How can I help? 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with diabetes - per precedent. - jc37 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who support regiving

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Snowolf How can I help? 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support regiving - "Support/Oppose issue" category. - jc37 02:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in Teeline shorthand

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

The result of the discussion was delete Category:Wikipedians interested in Teeline shorthand, no consensus on Category:Wikipedians interested in shorthand. Snowolf How can I help? 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Teeline shorthand - Single article category. - jc37 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Gateways

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Would have prefered not to close as I participated in this, but considering it was unanimous and considering the lack of admin activity at UCFD I find it necessary to close. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Gateways - per precedent - jc37 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use HPs

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Would have prefered not to close as I participated in this, but considering it was unanimous and considering the lack of admin activity at UCFD I find it necessary to close. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use HPs - per precedent. - jc37 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like The Fugitive

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Would have prefered not to close as I participated in this, but considering it was unanimous and considering the lack of admin activity at UCFD I find it necessary to close. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The Fugitive - single film cat. Per the precedent of the recent January closures. - jc37 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like Clear and Present Danger

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Would have prefered not to close as I participated in this, but considering it was unanimous and considering the lack of admin activity at UCFD I find it necessary to close. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Clear and Present Danger - single film cat. Per the precedent of the recent January closures. - jc37 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per CSD G4 (recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion); see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who does not tolerate harassment. – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one user in the category, not useful at all, since Wikipedia as a whole does not tolerate harrasment RogueNinjatalk 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ummm...why is this page threatened to be deleted by a non-admistrator?

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme[reply]

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

February 3

edit

Category:Wikipedians by hardware

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 C1 - empty - jc37 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - As with Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Pentium_D, Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Dells and Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_HD_DVD, a mother category listing these types of categories isn't going to be much use aswell. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite... Some software categories may be useful for collaboration, particularly those that group users by the ability to use software that could be relevant to improving articles (e.g. using a graphics editor to create images of molecules). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then shouldn't these categories be of the type Wikipedians who contribute with... rather than Wikipedians who use... (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who use Gimp)? Furthermore if that is acceptable then why not Wikipedians who contribute with an iPhone? For example it would seem very useful to know which users contribute with a Mac system as the keyboard layout would change how plugins work with a particular wikipedia editor.--Ashley VH (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, and like many CfDs, the "precedent" is set by three or four users. I would support keeping this and have discussion about inclusion criteria. I don't think a blanket ban of "by ownership" is good, because there are likely collaborative categories to be found with some types of ownership. I also find myself agreeing with the points Ashley VH brings up. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's see... At the very least, I might own a toothbrush, a Television set, a radio, a computer, a [calculator]], a pair of shoes, a shirt, stockings, underwear, a hat, a monitor, a chair, a table, a desk, an iPod, an automobile, an umbrella, etc. And whie I may think it's interesting to note on my userpage that I own these items, there is no need for a category of all of us who own such items. In addition, ownership does not equal usership. I'll freely admit to owning things that I don't use, or for that matter things which I use which I know little about, or even (more importantly to this discussion) things which I own, use, and may even know something about, but have no interest in collaborating about. That said, please feel free to create Category:Wikipedians interested in computer hardware (or some such name), as that seems to be what you're (Ned Scott) talking about. (Though with no guarantees, of it not being nominated, of course.) - jc37 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.

(Note: This has been open for almost twice the normal length of a CfD discussion (even with a backlog tag at the top of this page), so I'm going to ignore the normal guidelines and close it.)
Whether you "vote count", or whether you look at all the various reasons/rationales of the commenters (this "discussion" was all-over-the-place), no real consensus to be found here, though perhaps future category nominations may hopefully learn from this discussion. - jc37 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians by religion
Delete category plus all subcategories except Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Ramayana as it is neutral and collaboration-fied.
Nominator's rationale: While nobody would deny anyone regardless of religious affiliation the opportunity to edit the encyclopedia, it is clear that this category and all of its subcategories can be divisive, is offensive to some segments of the community, and most importantly, grouping users on the basis of interest does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Perhaps the category, after deletion, can be restarted as "Wikipedians interested in religious issues" - with each subcategory adhering to similar naming guidelines. That would clearly be collaborative. This is a good faith attempt to follow precedent in user category organization. Several of these cats are orphaned, some only have 1 user in them, and some were created as a subcat with another subcat below it but both subcats being the same purpose (example:Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians and Category:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians). There's even Category:Universal Life Church Wikipedians. Come on now, ULC? The "church" that ordains anyone, for free, over the internet? Therefore, please also use good faith when discussing. Per Jc37's suggestion below. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been established in many of these cat deletion discussions, this sort of category has the potential to create horrible divisions in the community, and is more for social networking than anything else. Jeffpw (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a post script, if you click the link from the various categories, it does not bring you to this section specifically, that should be changed or I'll have to take this to DRV if deletion is decided. GreenJoe 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot when tagging multiple cats to include the UCfD link in the cfd-user template. I'm doing them all now. They are all fixed now. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/delete - Category:LGBT Wikipedians has been recreated, so the arguments of "Why should religion get to keep their categories while sexuality categories get deleted" doesn't 100% apply unless that category is re-deleted. As for this category, I'm leaning towards supporting deletion. Categories are for grouping users to make finding them easier for collaboration on Wikipedia pages. For any other self-identification, userboxes or other statements on the userpage should be sufficient. I think that just because someone belongs to a particular religion does not mean that they should add themselves to a Wikipedia category, which the current system encourages. The categories, as named, simply state self-identification that can be done on the user page, it gives no implication that the person adding the category to their page would be interested in collaborating on articles related to that religion, which is supposed to be the whole point of user categorization. Unless guidelines for user categories develop stating that certain non-collaborative user categories are acceptable, I can only go with my gut that these type of categories should be named Category:Wikipedians interested in religion x or Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on x religion related topics (my personal preference). Since those who belong to a religion are not necessarily interested in collaborating on articles related to their religion, a rename could introduce miscategorization, so a deletion of all these and creation of "Interested in" cats seems like the best option. VegaDark (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Let's see, we now have over 2 million articles, during the bigger time of which user categories were present. User categories such as the "Taco Bell eaters", "Users who attended underwater basketweaving 101", etc are utter nonsense and should be kept out of the project. However, user categories of religion are more serious. Users who add themselves to them are showing good faith of their background, and it doesn't mean that they edit without consideration of NPOV. The worst POV pushers I have seen never added themselves to a user cat or even used a userbox on their userpage. They simply ramrod their POV with their edits only. Why this fear of user cats? Will the project come to an end if we don't delete them? Why focus on this non-issue when we have red-links for articles that need to be written? While you are at it, why not go and target the portals and noticeboards for the same reasoning you want to delete user categories. My suggestion, find something else to do and stop disrupting the project with the witch hunts. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a way queer wikipedian whose categories have been repeatedly targeted for deletion for (hmmmmmmmmm) various reasons it seems there might be an elegant solution to migrate all user categories to user interested in ______ rather than a self-identifier which, to me would foster more of the collaborative nature of building articles rather than the perceptions of social networking. In any case the same rules should apply to all. If I self identify as worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any other gods), as being a person of color and into some fetish then my choices should be treated equally as any other wikipedians. Benjiboi 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a straightforward renaming of these categories, as opposed to deletion of these categories and natural creation of "interest" categories, is that these are identification categories and identification does not automatically imply interest. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless renamed and re-scoped to clearly state collaborative merit. –Pomte 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would not want to use one of these categories myself, but I think they can be useful for collaboration. Removing them all is also going at annoy a lot of editors without real benefit, although I suspect some people are not even aware that they are in the category as a result of using the userbox. If deleted, all userboxes need editing to remove the reference to a category. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator says these categories "can be" divisive and asserts that they are offensive. If some editor is going to be offended by the fact that another editor adheres to a certain belief system, isn't it better to get that out in the open? Also, didn't we just go through this? Looking back, it was about 7 months ago (seems sooner), but that still seems a bit soon. Has consensus (or policy) changed that much since then, or are we asking the other parent? At the very least, at least the whole group of subcats is up now, rather than cherry-picking as it was last time, so long as it's done to all or none, I think that's fair. I just think it should be none. Ryanjunk (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on guys, how often has this been put up for CSD now? Keep per Ryanjunk's rationale. -- P.B. Pilhet 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nobody is saying you can't shout your religious beliefs from the highest mountain. But you don't need categories to do that. Especially ones that cause more problems than they solve. --Kbdank71 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could one of the people who thinks these would be better replaced with "Wikipedians interested in..." categories actually make those categories? I'd be more inclined to go along with this deletion if its replacement was in place.DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In a previous removal of CfD tags, it seems that some cats were miscategorised. (Some that were philosophy/belief, were grouped under religion.) I've fixed that. However, I have not removed the current CfD tags. Further, I would not oppose this nom being expanded to include religious-like philosophies (such as the -deist philosophies), as I noted in the closure below (the apparent source of this nom). If it is not expanded, then those should not be considered to be included in this nom. If it is done, then the date of this nom should be adjusted to when those are included. In addition, it could be argued that taoism is or is not a "religion", and so if the philosophy cats aren't included in this nom, then the taoist cat should probably be split into its own nom. (There are a few others that could possibly be split off for similar reasons.) - jc37 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worth spending a few minutes of my much needed vacation on. This is a broad enough nomination to ensure we don't single out anyone in particular. Consistency is important and I do believe that these would serve as much purpose as Users interested in... categories as those that have already been moved to such broader categories. There appears to be a consensus per other UCFD's involving self-identification categories that self-identification is not a sufficient reason for a category and as such I believe these should be deleted as well and the editors using them asked to use the Users interested in... categories. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-identification categories that do not foster encyclopedic collaboration and are little more than bottom-of-the-page notices. A number of users in favour of keeping the categories have argued that users have a right to express their religion and/or that expressions of religion are not inherently divisive. I can agree with both claims, but that still doesn't tell us how or why a grouping of users based on religion is useful. Although users have a right to express their religion, they do not need a user category to do that (in fact, categories should not just be bottom-of-the-page notices). – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Knowledge of other people is relevant to encyclopedic collaboration in general, as is a sense of community. I'd never self-identify in any such category here, but I see nothing inappropriate about those who do. There is no evidence that such a category have been used for vote-stacking or tendentious editing. The use is encouraging users, including those who want to express themselves without interfering with the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Initially I was tempted to support the deletion, based on HalfShadow's argument [2] that "this is not a singles bar" (for context and response: [3]), but then I reflected - if such a notion is an offensive stereotype for LGBT Wikipedians, maybe some religious groups are unfairly steretyped at times as well. Dare I mention Muslims in a lot of Western countries, or Jews in Arabic countries, or...
The argument for these categories is rooted in policy. It's obvious in Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories (I know, not widely used) but also found in Wikipedia:Userboxes#User categories: "User categories (categories of Wikipedians) are intended for grouping Wikipedians in order to aid in facilitating collaboration on the encyclopedia". Note that this does not say the evidence of its use for collaboration is required, only that it should aid in facilitating collaboration. Now, if I were editing an article on religious intolerance in country X, then it is obvious that Wikipedians who adhere to that religion are more likely to know of acceptable sources of relevant verified material. Note that this is not an argument for those editors adding their own experiences, merely that those editors are more likely to have relevant knowledge that would assist a collaborative effort to improve an article. I am aware that this argument has been made before in relation to the category:Queer Wikipedians. Hopefully this discussion will be evaluated and closed by an admin who won't substitute their own opinion for consensus (as happened previously [4] in similar cases), and will not simply disregard policy-based comment without evidence or explanation. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and trout slap the lot of you. Re-run the entire ridiculous position that every cat must be collaborative. Why must it? It's one of the most pointy things going. I sure there are better things to be doing than running all these non-collaboration cats over and over and over. Thanks!Wjhonson (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trout slap Wjohnson for a strong keep with no reasoning. I see you've typed a lot of complaining-type words, but none of them say why you want to keep. :) --Kbdank71 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if some Wikipedians feel a social need to bond with similar users via such a cat let them. If it makes their stay in Wikispace more pleasant, great. Hopefully, they will be more productive Wikipedians - in the meantime the rest of us can ignore them and get on with editing. --Sansumariat@lk 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 12:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I would dispute that. How is a Christian inherently better able to write articles on Christianity than a non-Christian? I can see the argument holding for someone who has an interest in Christianity or who is a cleric or theologian, but one doesn't have to be a Christian to be interested in or knowledgeable about the religion, and claiming to adhere to Christianity is no guarantee of possession of an encyclopedically-relevant interest in or knowledge of the subject. (By the way, I've chosen Christianity just as an example; the same could be said of any religion categories.) – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I suppose you're right. I'd forgotten about the open-ended churches. Off with its head then—or, you know, whatever. Octane [improve me] 10.02.08 0718 (UTC)
  • KEEP Although I quite understand the motivation behind this move. The deletion of category:Gay Wikipedians was a bad decision. I don't understand why people can't have whatever categories they wish to have to label themselves whatever they care to. I identify in category:Quaker Wikipedians and in the short-lived category:Gayass Wikipedians. Keep in mind that people don't have to label themselves as anything at all if they wish. Keeping all of you in the gay light... --Moni3 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia should not be in the business of denying people the right to self-identify and associate based on their religious convictions. That's just plain oppressive. If you don't want to add your religion you don't have to. If religion is important to someone, it suppresses religion to say they may not express it as a category. Wikidemo (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would not consider these categories divisive, and are merely informative. If an editor are offended by a member of the editing community being a member of one of these categories, it would be censorship to delete the category for that reason. I see no reason to believe that these categories are offensive, and allow users to self-identify. Indeed when editing, if a user's own 'meatspace' opinion is known, then there can be less chance of accusations of underhand POV-pushing. EJF (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to stay neutral in this, but after reading the discussion of the Rouge Admins category elsewhere on this page - if we can keep a joke category that only admins can add themselves to, on pain of banning, we can keep Wikipedians by Religion. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was Speedily closed - I was going to comment in the discussion below to note that this had been recently nominated (though somewhat as a pointy action), and was hoping that concensus might form this time. However, the category (and sub-cats) were not tagged, and (more to the "point") comments on the user's talk page suggest that this is also such a pointy nom. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battle ground, and taking such action due to mis-ascribed ownership issues of something that was deleted is probably not good for any of us, and especially not good for Wikipedia. - jc37 10:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Wikipedians
Delete cat plus all subcategories.
Nominator's rationale: While nobody would deny Americans the opportunity to edit the encyclopedia, it is clear that this category can be divisive, is offensive to some segments of the community, and most importantly, grouping users on the basis of nationality does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Perhaps the category, after deletion, can be restarted as "Wikipedians interested in editing American articles". That would clearly be collaborative. Jeffpw (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy close - Let's just nip this in the bud before it becomes needlessly disruptive. Per the many previous nominations of the religion-related Wikipedian categories, this would need to be nominated with all the other Wikipedians by religion categories, and possibly even all the religion-related Wikipedians by philosophy categories as well. If this is the intention, feel free to attempt to create such a group nomination. But this isolated nomination has a snowball's chance of finding consensus. - jc37 10:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian Wikipedians
Delete cat plus all subcategories.
Nominator's rationale: While nobody would deny Christians the opportunity to edit the encyclopedia, it is clear that this category can be divisive, is offensive to some segments of the community, and most importantly, grouping users on the basis of interest does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Perhaps the category, after deletion, can be restarted as "Wikipedians interested in editing Christian articles". That would clearly be collaborative. Jeffpw (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian mountain bikers

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - The only member of the category was already in the target category. - jc37 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedian mountain bikers to Category:Wikipedian cyclists
Nominator's rationale: Is there a significant difference—in terms of potential to aid collaboration—between a grouping of users who are cyclists and a grouping of users who are mountain bikers? If there is not, then there is no need for the categories to be separate. In addition, the category currently includes only one user (its creator - who has been inactive since May 2007), despite having existed for 13 months (see original page log).
Delete. A grouping of users on the basis of interest does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Precedent was firmly established at the time of the purge of all gay wikipedian categories. Jeffpw (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom or delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, there is a massive difference. Mountain bikers bike for fun, with specialized bikes, ussually off-road and without much concern for traffic. Cyclists is a much larger category including utility cyclists and commuters, racers, and cyclotourists. I would not expect a mountain biker to care about panniers or traffic laws, or a general cyclists to be up-to-date on the latest Rock Shox products. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Pentium D

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

The result of the discussion was delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Pentium D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A grouping of users on the basis of which computer processor they happen to use does not foster encyclopedic collaboration.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who use Dells

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

The result of the discussion was Delete The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Dells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A grouping of users on the basis of which company manufactured the computer they happen to use does not foster encyclopedic collaboration.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 2

edit

Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Would have prefered not to close as I participated in this, but considering it was unanimous and considering the lack of admin activity at UCFD I find it necessary to close. VegaDark (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use HD DVD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Despite the name, this is actually a support/oppose category – populated solely by transclusions of a userbox – for users who "prefer HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc". There is overwhelming precedent to delete such categories (see here) as they do not foster encyclopedic collaboration and violate the spirit of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground, especially when they are about issues that are unrelated to Wikipedia. Even if the support/oppose element is taken away (rendering the category empty), a category of users who use HD DVD still does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lmao! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above; it was specifically crafted in response to this particular possibility. Additionally, every single user is this category is there because of your userbox, which doesn't match the category name (preferring one format over the other does not necessarily equate to actually using that format). In any case, this is really a CSD G4, as the same category was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians who support HD DVD, which is essentially the same thing, with only a slight variation in name. That category was attached to the same user box; the discussion there is relevant to this discussion, as nothing has changed. Horologium (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify that the main reason given by me (the nominator) is that it does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration in any form (as a support/oppose category or as an ownership category). As for changing the meaning of the userbox, I don't think that's necessarily good practice: the people who currently use the userbox do so because they "prefer HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc", not just because they "use HD DVD". (In fact, someone can prefer HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc without currently using HD DVD. For instance, I prefer the Audi A8 over the vehicle I currently own, but...) – Black Falcon (Talk) 19:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Lower Merion High School

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Lower Merion High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
  • Delete, possibly speedy delete these from now on per WP:IAR. With 30 discussions of past precedent, there is no way any of these will ever survive UCFD without consensus for deleting high school categories being overturned at WP:DRV first, so a UCFD is really only a formallity at this point. Additionally, for future noms such as these I would reccommend to the nominator to only list a few examples-No need to go to the work of linking to 30 debates for a cut and dry UCFD such as this. VegaDark (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who fix double redirects

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Snowolf How can I help? 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who fix double redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On the surface, it looks like this category could actually be useful to the project. However, considering Special:DoubleRedirects says "It is not necessary to fix these by hand. Bots will go through the entire list periodically and fix all of the double redirects.", I don't see the point of the category. If this wasn't the case, I could possibly see users too busy to fix ones they created seeking out users in the category to do it for them, but since bots will do the work, whatever usefulness this category might have had has pretty much disappeared. VegaDark (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How often do the bots go through the list? Unless it's particularly seldom, I can't think of a scenerio where leaving the double redirects for a little while longer would be harmful. Additionally, Someone who has the time to go through the category, find someone who is active, and leave them a message about fixing double redirects would be able to fix a couple themselves in that amount of time. So this category wouldn't be helpful in cases where only a couple double redirects are created, it would only be useful in cases where a large amount are created. Usually, as it so happens, those are the times when people request bots to do the work. So unless the amount of double redirects created isn't too large or too small, I don't see this category ever being used. Even with that, I am very doubtful this category would be used much if at all. How many people even know about this category? How many people, even if they did know, would use it rather than let the bots deal with it or just fix it themselves? I'm not convinced this is useful enough to keep. VegaDark (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that use the Print Screen key

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted...that was fast. VegaDark (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that use the Print Screen key (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-collaborative, potentially all-inclusive category. No encyclopedic reason to ever seek out other users in this. VegaDark (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 1

edit

Wikipedians who like X part 2

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

The result of the discussion was delete all. нмŵוτнτ 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like V for Vendetta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like 300 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Dumb and Dumber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like Transformers (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who like The Phantom Menace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally missed these as they were on the elusive page 2 of the parent category. Per precedent and reasoning below, these are not helpful to the project. VegaDark (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/February_2008&oldid=1147944669"