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

< February 2008	April 2008 >

March 29

Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television

Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television

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 to merge at this time. Feel free to relist after a suitable amount of time has been given for those who wish to reorganize this. VegaDark (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in comedy television

Category:Wikipedians interested in drama television

The problem is that categorising by genre is rather subjective. M*A*S*H is just one of many examples. (And I don't think we should get into the "dramedy" debate either). - jc37 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series (presuming the result of the discussion below). - jc37 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I support deletion or rename of all subcategories, though, but until they are nominated this is a good interim action. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator of the categories. The series that fit more than one category can be put in more than one category. These categories were created to clean up the parent category. It was a complete mess before these categories were created. Those that fit both categories have been categorized as such. This category was in a sibling category to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature by genre called Category:Wikipedians interested in television by genre that looks to have been depopulated and deleted which I will now have to DFR. - LA @ 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pause and reorganize per LA. This will be a lot easier if we are able to evaluate these categories together and get some larger community discussion about what we're doing with them. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pause and reorganize per LA. (If you want to bounce some ideas, let me know, LA.) —Scouter Sig 15:34, 3 April 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 talk television and subcats

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all except Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television. However, as all subcategories will be deleted, that category will become empty, so will be subject to C1 speedy deletion (without prejudice to recreation, of course, as per all C1 speedy deletions). If it gets recreated and populated, it can be brought back here. This has been open far too long, and everyone is reluctant to close, so even though I was a participant in the debate, the lack of closers makes this necessary. I would have liked to not have to close, but I feel this closure fairly represents the consensus below. VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television

Category:Wikipedians who like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Category:Wikipedians who like Late Night with Conan O'Brien

Category:Wikipedians who like the Late Show with David Letterman

Category:Wikipedians who like The O'Reilly Factor

Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain

Category:Wikipedians who like The Soup - not even a talk show, but rather a show which highlights talk shows.

Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC - per this discussion

Delete all as essentially single article categories, and per various precedent, specifically these talk shows. - jc37 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the CNBC category (watching a TV station does not imply any ability or desire to improve articles about the station) and weak delete the rest as sparsely-populated (in some cases, such as Category:Wikipedians who like The Soup, single-user) categories with limited collaborative scope (in most cases, such as Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain, limited to a single article). All user categories do need to revolve around facilitating encyclopedic collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Talk television" category as being fairly broad. Other than that, I agree with BF. —Scouter Sig 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Attempting to discern clarity) - By agreeing with BF, you're saying: Strong delete of CNBC, and Weak delete of the rest, but suggesting to Keep the parent category? - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; Keep Talk TV, delete the rest. The parent/main category is broad enough to be useful as a collaboration/information source, but no so specific as to be divisive. I'm thinking it is on par with a "Talk radio" category. —Scouter Sig 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Though note that the "talk radio" categories have all been recently deleted. - jc37 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support keeping the parent category. Thought it will become a candidate for speedy deletion (C1 - empty) if the subcategories are removed, a C1 deletion can be overturned without any formal review if ever there is a need for an actual "interest" category (as opposed to a parent category) for talk television. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in talk television seems to be more likely to be useful for collaboration. The other ones listed here.. not so much, but I don't have a strong opinion on them. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If you want to profess your like for a particular show, add it to your myspace page. --Kbdank71 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Genre and media categories. - LA @ 09:45, 7 April 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 film

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 subcategories were moved during the course of the discussion, so depopulation essentially amounts to deletion. There are a couple of problems that this category had, including the ambiguity as to if those in the category are interested in individual films vs. cinema. As said below, there is no prejudice in creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in cinema. If the proposed guideline mentioned below ends up panning out, this is of course not an irreversible decision. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in film - depopulate of all but subcats (making this a parent cat) per previous precedent of "interested in books". Similar to television, below, this is simply too vague in naming to be useful for anything but a parent cat. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate - as nominator. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I disagree, and there really wasn't any precedent formed from the books discussion. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate per nom. - But with reservations about "depopulate" noms from now on if we are not able to enforce them. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would force the creation of possibly hundreds of sub-categories. - LA @ 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all categories of those interested in a particular (individual) film have been deleted. Only those interested in film series remain. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of film series. - LA @ 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate, doesn't serve any purpose as it is. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a category for Wikipedians interested in the subject of film or for those interested in one or more specific films? Or, is it just a grouping of people who like to watch films? If it is the first, it should be kept. If it is the second or third, it should be depopulated. Given the ongoing discussion concerning the depopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in history (see here), I'm starting to think that we shouldn't depopulate categories unless they are explicitly parent categories (that is, they contain some form of "Wikipedians by" in their title). I would not be opposed to a proposal to rename (i.e. repurpose) and depopulate this category, but I'm reluctant to support depopulation under the current name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a problem in naming (which several of these have). Consider the "books as objects" result. I would strongly support a speedy rename of adding an "s" to "film". That simple change should deal with your concern. - jc37 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's an issue with multiple categories (including, in addition to this one, "interested in television", "interested in books", "interested in history"), but I'm not sure the addition of an "s" to "film" will be enough, especially since it would still leave open the possibility of repopulation of the category. Is there any way that this could be converted into a "Wikipedians by" parent category? (Incidentally, the "books as objects" category is still a single-user category, and the creator did note that he supported deletion if membership didn't increase within a month of creation...) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So something like "Wikipedians by interest in films"? (I still think the "s" is important since it helps distinguish between films as finished products; and film as an art; or as a profession; or, for that matter, as an object.) - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given its lack of specificity, would a category for interest in films (as opposed to the art of film) be useful? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a parent cat to subcats dealing with specific films (and possibly a parent of parent cats - the parent: films by director, for example). Does that clarify better? - jc37 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created Category:Wikipedians by interest in films to show what I mean (It can obviously be reverted as a result of this discussion.) - jc37 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now what you meant. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with BF: if the category as is does not just mean "likes to watch movies" but is rather an expression of "the art of film," then it's fine as is. Its subcats do not entirely prove this point, though. —Scouter Sig 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they don't. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the subcategories have been relocated, delete (i.e. depopulate) this ambiguously-named category, without prejudice to creating Category:Wikipedians interested in cinema for those who are interested in (to quote ScouterSig) "the art of film". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Then, to clarify) - Support BF's statement directly above. - jc37 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(to BF) That's just splitting hairs. Not that I'm opposed to the idea. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BF. --Kbdank71 00:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Genre and media categories. - LA @ 09:45, 7 April 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 an AMD Dual Core processor

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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per tons of precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by computer hardware, probably speedyable as similar enough to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use computers with AMD processors. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorisation on this basis does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. It's probably speedy-able as a more specialised recreation of the "AMD processors" category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 23:28, 2 April 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 the Idol series (subcategories only)

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 (WP:SNOW and clear consensus below) as not facilitating encyclopedic activity. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a category for every spin-off of this series. Far too narrow for collaboration to get this specific. These should all be upmerged to the parent category (or preferably, deleted as "liking" a show does not help the encyclopedia). VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like the Idol series or delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - including the parent (as a "who like" cat doesn't clearly enough indicate collaborative interest). Each one seems to be (or at least nearly is) a "single article" category. No prejudice against the creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in the Idol series per Idol series. - jc37 09:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom and jc37. Also, the mere act of watching a reality show, which is the sentiment expressed by the userbox, does not imply liking it, and watching or liking a reality show does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Black Falcon, esp. "does not imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest." Master Redyva ♠
Delete all and why can't we get rid of the parent cat too? —ScouterSig 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally said subcategories only as I didn't think there would be consensus to delete all, but I fully support deleting it as well (and i see that it has been tagged) if that is what consensus is here (which I am happy to see looks to be the case). VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 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:Decatur Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation (only member already in target category)- Just found this, ironically resulting in rename to my proposed upmerge target. VegaDark (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category description reads as "This category lists Wikipedia users who currently live in or have previously lived in Decatur, Alabama or the Decatur Metropolitan Area located in Alabama, United States; that includes the counties of Morgan, and Lawrence.", however the userbox says "This user lives in or hails from Decatur, Alabama." Decatur, Alabama has a population of about 56,000, so it is borderline for a category in that respect, but the fact the category has only a single user is also something that should be considered. My first choice would be to upmerge this to Category:Wikipedians in the Huntsville-Decatur Area, Alabama (which perhaps could use a rename of its own in the future). My second choice would be delete as single user category (and possibly as too small of a location to support a category), and my third choice would be to rename the category to Category:Wikipedians in Decatur, Alabama. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Bolinas

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolinas, California has a population of a mere 1,200. Far too small to support collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in the San Francisco Bay Area (which could perhaps use a rename itself in the future) as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Vega. —Scouter Sig 02:14, 31 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 in Dallas

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Dallas, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in El Paso

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in El Paso, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Houston

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Houston, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Laredo

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Laredo, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in San Antonio

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in San Antonio, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Los Angeles

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Los Angeles, California for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Bakersfield

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Bakersfield, California for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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 in Denver

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 renamed by another user. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Denver, Colorado for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 29 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.

March 28

Category:Wikipedians in Austin

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) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Austin, Texas for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 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 play the mandolin

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of Category:Wikipedian mandolinists, which is the proper naming convention of such categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Honestly, I think this should probably be a reverse merge. Even the populating userbox uses "plays the Mandolin".~~ - jc37 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article contains numerous uses of both "mandolinist" and "mandolin player". Also, I just noticed Category:Mandolinists... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough : ) - jc37 19:30, 29 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 in Raleigh

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) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh to Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh, North Carolina - for clarity. - jc37 15:49, 28 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 with a global account

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 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with a global account - As this is currently only available to administrators, this would seem to be potentially duplicative of Category:Administrators. Another case of where the userbox(es), or other userpage notcies, should be fine, but the category, not so much. - jc37 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not just for that reason, but because the category has no benefit. The global account is purely a technical issue, and doesn't reflect a person's views, positions, powers, or anything of the sort. Knowing that user X has a global account tells me absolutely nothing about user X. Even when other users have access to this category, it'll still be pointless. Ral315 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an issue. By placing oneself in this category, I don't see why that equates to a "position of power", "status seeking" or anything of the sort. Rather, it's a purely informative resource of information. I don't think your point is applicable. Anthøny 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was Ral's point that this category equates to a position of power or status-seeking. On the contrary, he states thta it "doesn't reflect ..." any of those. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The full list is availabe here, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VegaDark (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a few user categories are frivolous, but this one isn't. As per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Single User Login and other discussions, this feature has great significance for the project. Users who are participating in the beta stage can easily locate one another via this category, and others who are interested in how it is proceeding can easily locate them. — Athaenara ✉ 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ral. While the category potentially wouldn't duplicate CAT:ADMINS (administrators from other projects who are not administrators here could be included), and the feature does have great significance for the project, I don't know why one user with a global account would need to find another via this category, and anyone interested in how it's going can check the reports on Bugzilla. WODUP 07:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Athaenara. Seems to me this would have great use for people either trying to learn more about global accounts. This could additionally be used by users who are looking for others that have accounts on other wikis they are active on. GlassCobra 07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be referring to Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Athaenara and GlassCobra. Master Redyva ♠ 18:34, March 29, 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Ral and WODUP. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is probably the best place to ask for information about the feature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting this up is not trivial, and those who have them or those who want to may well want to contact each other. Certainly project related. DGG (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments above, and as a counter to what I view as essentially non-arguments. Anthøny 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not all users who have a global account are administrators on English Wikipedia. miranda 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but this category contains only users with an account on en.wikipedia (and, currently, it contains only admins). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a global account and I am not an admin here. miranda 07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ral315, WODUP, and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found myself in this category one day because someone added it to the template I had just added to my userpage. I had to subst the template so I could remove myself from the category, as it is useless. Just because someone is in this category does not mean they are able to or want to help you with global accounts. If you want help with global accounts, go to m:Help:Unified login. --Kbdank71 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves /no/ purpose at all. While I disagree it's inherently a copy of Category:Administrators (as not all in that category have a global account yet), I do think it's relatively useless. Essentially, this is a category saying "this user has the same username elsewhere," which is not a category we'd probably allow (how does it help the encyclopedia?). The users in this category most do not inherently know how to help users with SUL transition (for many people, it's a matter of pressing "submit" on Special:MergeAccount), so I don't believe that is a good reason to keep it either. 65.97.18.143 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is mine, I forgot to sign in. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone wants to do research about users with global accounts, finding out who has the userbox on their page would be just as effective, and would take only a few more clicks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutersig (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 April 2008 [1]
- That assumes someone knows the userbox name, no? Gimmetrow 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All you have to do is hit "edit" and there's a list of all transcluded pages (for example, this section shows that {{unsigned}} is being used. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not quite what I was implying. Right above this is a discussion of Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh, North Carolina. If someone wants to know users in the category, it's the same as finding out what userpages hav {{User Raleigh}}. "Just takes a few clicks more." If this argument were persuasive, we wouldn't have many user categories. Gimmetrow 01:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point Gimmetrow. However, I think this user cat would help little for curiosity/research, and not at all for collaboration. Because of its limited functionality, I was trying to express that it is still possible to follow up on curiosity/research without the category. —Scouter Sig 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I think the nominating rationale doesn't say it best. This is, quite simply, a unique category only as a temporary measure. Unless my understanding is off, unified logins are going to happen for everyone (they're only for admins right now because it's a smaller group with which to test this out with). Once that happens, this category will be as helpful as "Wikipedians with an account". EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I see there is some utility, because there are few users with a global account. But when global account be enabled to everyone, it has no more purpose and is equivalent to "Category:Wikipedians with an account". Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some are under the mispaken assumption that only English administrators populate this category. Note that this feature is open to admins on every project, and those do not have to be an admin here. So the argument that this cat copies Category:Wikipedia administrators is not true. Also, if people do not want to be categorised, use |category= or |nocat=1. So that takes care of the two most heard objections here. — Edokter • Talk • 16:23, 5 April 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 play board games

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. Kbdank71 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play board games - tagged this merely as nearly the entire tree has been nominated. (And noting I merged Vega Dark's several noms to this one. Feel free to "un-merge" the nomination if wanted.) - jc37 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally didn't include this because of the "interested in" category, but I suppose that can be moved to Wikipedians by interest. VegaDark (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge any surviving "interest" subcategories to Category:Wikipedians interested in games. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per BF. —Scouter Sig 19:11, 1 April 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 tafl games

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all. Kbdank71 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to the encyclopedia to know who "plays" a particular board game. Neutral on creation of an "interested in" categories except for the backgammon category, which looks too narrow. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per my several comments at this discussion. - jc37 09:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and jc37 except Category:Wikipedians who play tafl games, which is a category for a family of games. Rename that category to Category:Wikipedians interested in tafl games (a check of the contributions history of the sole users in the category shows that s/he actively edits articles related to the subject). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per BF. —Scouter Sig 19:11, 1 April 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 chess

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. Kbdank71 13:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play chess - Same rationale as the group nom above. No prejudice against creation of a "by interest" version, though such a cat may not be appropriate for inclusion in some "who play" userboxes. - jc37 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without prejudice to creating an "interest" category. I enjoy playing chess, but have no interest in the topic of chess. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally didn't include this because I thought this would have more opposition to deleting it than the others, but I still support its deletion. VegaDark (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per BF. —Scouter Sig 19:11, 1 April 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 Twinkle

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. Kbdank71 13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the advent of the new "gadgets" tab in "My preferences", using Twinkle is as simple as checking a checkbox in preferences, so I would argue that whatever use this category might have had before that was added is no longer applicable. No real use to search for other users with Twinkle since it is so easy for a user to add now, it is potentially all-inclusive. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obsodelete. Dorftrottel (complain) 09:40, March 31, 2008
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Those who just check the checkbox aren't making personal settings, they're only using defaults. With this line of thinking, the category is more likely to include editors using more details, possibly advanced options, or at least have a better than average understanding of Twinkle. This is about as "all inclusive" as the category for Internet Explorer (last I checked it was still most common browser in use). -- Ned Scott 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though Ned makes some good points. However, I don't see this as a particularly helpful category; just because someone uses Twinkle doesn't mean that they'd be able to help another user with a bug, and there are better venues for that (like WT:TWINKLE or WP:VPT). EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:13, 2 April 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.

March 25

Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage

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) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Anchorage, Alaska for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 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 in Ann Arbor

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) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Ann Arbor, Michigan for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 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 in Atlanta

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) 00:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Atlanta, Georgia for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 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:Brunei work group members

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:WikiProject Brunei members. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs indication this is a user category. Apparently a former section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, it now has its own Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Brunei, so should probaby be renamed to Category:WikiProject Brunei members or Category:WikiProject Brunei participants, depending on which name the users in the project prefer. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either per nom, with a slight preference for "members" to match the text of Template:User WikiProject Brunei and the previous category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either as nom. The new admin that renamed the work group to a wikiproject probably forgot to rename this as well. --Novelty (talk) 16:11, 26 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:New users to WP:NOVELS

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 to Category:WikiProject Novels participants. (List already exists; issues with naming conventions; and concerns with the subjectivity of "new".) - jc37 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to categorize only the new users, Category:WikiProject Novels participants already exists. Also, no indication it is a user category. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, presuming the members are already in the second category. Merge if not. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of new users to the project is already available here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the WikiProject wants to have a category like this, I see no reason to delete it. It could actually be very useful for a number of reasons. When I used to give new participant notices for WP:DIGI I would have to rely on memory and individual page histories to see if I had already given a notice or not, and that's a much smaller group than WP:NOVELS. The only problem I can see is maintenance of it, but that could be something as easy as a time-trigger in a userbox. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I may be somewhat bias in favour of keeping the page because I created it, I should point out that I created it for a reason, so that members of the project could visit the users' talk pages and elp them adjust. WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. When does "new" end? —Scouter Sig 15:08, 28 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:Wikipedian Underground Miner

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 - single user cat (and concerns about the current name). No prejudice against (re-)creation (though renamed, as appropriate) should there be more interest. - jc37 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to fix capitalization and plurality per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by profession. Additionally, although I am no expert, I would consider "underground mining" similar enough to mining in general to just rename this to Category:Wikipedian miners. Also, I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion as a single-user category. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian miners (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedian underground miners (2nd choice) or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian underground miners, sounds better anyway, and hey, its not my fault that I'm all alone out there!EA210269 (talk) 21:48, 25 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 from Santa Catarina

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. Yeah, it could be renamed, but BF is right as we don't really need it anyway. Wizardman 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Catarina currently goes to a disambig page. The parent category makes it clear the one intended is Brazil, but that still leaves two possibilities for the location, Santa Catarina (state) and Santa Catarina (island). Since the island is in the state, I think this is best renamed to Category:Wikipedians from Santa Catarina (state). VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Santa Catarina (state) for clarification as nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice) or rename per nom (2nd choice). This is a "by origin" category, indicating where a user was born; such categories function primarily as identification categories and do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. We can choose our interests, but we can't choose where we're born. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 25 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 believe NWOBHM is a music genre

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - I'm closing this early as the only (two?) opposer(s) agree with the new category name. No prejudice against nomination of the new category (which has apparently already been created). - jc37 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cat was created in response to a discussion at Talk:Iron Maiden#New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and it serves no purpose other than to make a point. Funeral 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Do Not Delete The cat has three seperate users who honestly believe NWOBHM is an era and a music genre. The reason to delete the page is frivolous. The cat is no different than most other cat's pairing mutliple users together. Master Redyva 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Black Falcon's motion to keep & rename. Master Redyva (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. It is a typical example of a "Wikipedians by miscellaneous sentiment"-type category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this should be renamed, perhaps to Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal or similar (to match the convention of Category:Wikipedians by music genre). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I believe this could be a strong category. It appears this is an ongoing issue of debate and could act as a catalsyt for research and debate on the subject. I also believe it is a stronger catergory than Wikipedians who read Oscar Wilde, Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, Wikipedians who listen to world music. I also believe in "Wikilove," is that wrong? Please do not delete. 66.162.207.31 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Falcon is not only an active editor, but is also very bright. I concure with the rename: "Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal" 66.162.207.31 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename I think it should be deleted. If not, renamed per BF. нмŵוτн τ 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but allow creation of Category:Wikipedians who listen to New Wave of British Heavy Metal if it is in fact determined by consensus to constitute a music genre. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be renamed or the creation should be allowed even if by consensus it is not considered to be a music genre because I do listen the the NWOBHM bands (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc...). Even if it is not a genre, the bands still belong to the era (or wave of music from the time period). Master Redyva (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely pointless category with no purpose beyond self-identification, which UCFD consensus has determined to be moot.--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete A category created just to try and prove a point in a content argument. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both pointy and not useful. I believe a great many things, none of which are appropriate for user categories. I am not opposed to the creation of an appropriately named category, as proposed by Black Falcon, but I'd rather see a new category rather than a rename, as the parameters of this category do not precisely match the parameters of the proposed cat. Horologium (talk) 02:42, 28 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.

March 24

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Die Hard series

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Die Hard series - As I look over the members of the category, I see:

Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond - A lengthy series with quite a few related articles. See also: Category:James Bond.
Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series - Though only 3 films, it's spanned several media types. See also: Category:Matrix series.
Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python - Talk about spanning the media. See also: Category:Monty Python
Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars - And unless you've lived under a rock or in a cave, this should be self-explanatory. See also: Category:Star Wars.

The best that this cat has for comparison is: Category:Die Hard films. (See also: Die Hard series.) There really is no comparison.

I'm nominating this for procedural reasons as well. Noting that there are (as one Wikipedian put it) innumerable "series" out there. There should be more than the series of interlinked films to justify the "need" for a Wikipedian category. - jc37 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Die Hard films is now up for CFD. —Scouter Sig 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - partly per nom and partly due to the text of User:Sasoriza/Die Hard user (all members of the category transclude the userbox). The userbox does not express an interest in the subject of the Die Hard series so much as it expresses a liking for the films or a liking for one or more of the phrases contained (e.g. "live free and die hard", "Yipikayay, motherfucker"). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but without prejudice to recreation of a similar category geared towards collaboration on the franchise as a whole (Category:Wikipedians interested in Die Hard?). I don't particularly like "series" since I feel that refers exclusively toward the movies rather than including video games or other such articles that users might be enticed to collaborate on relating to Die Hard. Template:Die Hard lists 12 articles that I believe users could collaborate on, which is probably enough to support a category, but per my naming concerns and per BF pointing out that all users in the category simply have that userbox, I think it is best this is deleted rather than renamed. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or rename per VegaDark's wonderful explanation. нмŵוτн τ 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a superfluous category attached indiscriminately to a userbox. —Scouter Sig 19:13, 1 April 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 plugged into the Energy Portal

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 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As described at Portal talk:Energy#Show your support, the userboxes that populate this category are for users who "support" (in the emotional sense, not the physical sense) the Energy Portal. Thus, this category is essentially a variation on the various "friends of" user categories that have been deleted in the past (see, for example, this discussion). Such categories do not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration and are essentially unrelated to editing. There is a separate category for users who actually maintain the portal: Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Energy Portal.

(The text of the previous nomination of this category (and affiliated discussion), which resulted in a "no consensus" outcome, is located here.)

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The second category is more than sufficient and better named, we don't need 2 categories for this portal. VegaDark (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though the phrase and userbox are both a cute way to promote thier portal. —Scouter Sig 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concure with Scoutersig wholeheartedly. Cute indeed. Master Redyva ♠ 18:30, 25 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.

March 23

Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language (parent category only)

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. Kbdank71 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language to ...

The March 15 discussion for this category tree resulted in the renaming of all subcategories to the Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the [Language] Wikipedia format; however, the title of the parent category was not really addressed. This nomination is intended to prompt discussion regarding the appropriate name for the parent category. Options include (please propose others if you can think of any):

– Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Wikipedians by contribution to other language Wikipedias? VegaDark (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I closed the previous discussion, I considered Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. But I wasn't sure of the possible "tone" of using "other language". Other than what? English? Alternate language? Sister projects? I guess we're looking for synonyms here : ) - I also note that we tend to try to use "by" to notate in the name that the category is a parent cat. Can anyone find somewhere as to how WikiMedia refers to such Wikipedias? - jc37 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - So any further thoughts? There are at least 4 choices above. (And more that I suppose we could come up with.) Which do we all prefer/agree on? - jc37 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to follow the "Wikipedians by" convention (which would clearly identify this as being a parent category only), but "Wikipedians by contribution" focuses the category title on the nature of the contributions, implying that users are subcategorised based on the type of contributions that they make (e.g. image uploads, article writing, maintenance, etc.). Of the four options above, my current preference is for some form of "Wikipedians who contribute", to match the subcategories ... probably Category:Wikipedians who contribute to other language Wikipedias. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment Do the words "Wikipedian" AND "contributor" both have to be in there? That would seem redundant to me. What about "Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutersig (talk • contribs) 19:16, April 1, 2008 (UTC)

Technically, "Contributors to other Wikipedias by language" might include articles about notable editors of en.wikipedia. Of course, none of the other proposed names are problem-less, so... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:30, 1 April 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.

March 22

Category:Creamy Army WikiProject members

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 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a userspace project, not a real Wikiproject (and for good reason- "WikiProject Creamy Army is a WikiProject designed for and about users whose username’s include the word “Creamy” in it") and as such does not need its own category. If categories were allowed for userspace projects, that would set precedent for hundreds of similar categories to be created. Note also that the redirect, Category:WikiProject Creamy Army members, should be deleted along with this if this results in delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Scientizzle 02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Master Redyva ♠ 21:00, 25 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:User follyglot

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 - Creator request. Looks like the information has found a home at User:Snakesteuben/follyglotten, and the notice may be placed through User:Snakesteuben/Meidogger/Follyglot. - jc37 23:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These users frequently edit pages written in languages they don't understand" - No reason to search for such users, not helpful to project, improper naming convention used. VegaDark (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winter S. - author. That's more than fine.

But first, please take a quick look at the text of the category talk page, where I quickly scratched and pasted some text to convey the "vision" I had in mind. (Note: I'm not trying to "save" the category. I understand how the multitude of users on this project might necessitate an extremely aggressive deletion policy.) Just let me know if there's any place at all on English wikipedia where information like this might be helpful to someone. The "no reason" and "not helpful" judgements have already led me to expect a negative answer, so you needn't reply if the answer is "no." If you do reply, please drop a pointer on my talk page, or do it there, particularly if it's anything time-sensitive. Delete whenever you wish, without further notice. I've already got a version of this same content saved elsewhere on another project--one small enough to have the luxury of being more laid back without fear of chaos. Again, I understand why you need to be more strict here, and I'll keep stuff like this on sites like that from now on. Thanks for your time! Winter S. (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Step back guys, I think you are missing something here. --Bduke (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is a more appropriate naming convention: Category:Wikipedians who are happy to stubble though the process of editting pages on other subdomains ? John Vandenberg (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John: I conceived this as about pure wiki tech and editing, while the no-prefix categories seemed to me to be the convention for pure interest type things. Since I saw "User" in other language type categories here, and it seems to have passed muster elsewhere, I assumed that was the thing to do. Beyond that, yeah, my porting macro isn't perfect, but at least it did replace "Meidogger" with "User"! Winter S. (talk) 10:22, 23 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:Stage magicians

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as empty/speedy renamed. I've removed the lone user from the category, who had several other mainspace categories on their userpage as well. VegaDark (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Stage magicians. The contents of this category have been moved to

Category:Magicians. Gjs238 (talk) 13:46, 22 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.

March 21

Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Chronicles of Narnia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rename' Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia to Category:Wikipedians who read Narnia interested in > who read, per convention of the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. Probably qualifies for speedy renaming. - jc37 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as named, Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Chronicles of Narnia, there is a movie in this series as well so it is not just a series of books, hence "who read" would be inaccurate. Similar to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually the series name is The Chronicles of Narnia. So we need a rename to at least that. - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As The Chronicles of Narnia has crossed media, I would say rename it to Category:Wikipedians who like The Chronicles of Narnia since they can be read or watched. Keep the words "who like" instead of "interested in" to keep the category name length down. - LA @ 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ~~Category:Wikipedians who like The Chronicles of Narnia~~ Category:Wikipedians interested in The Chronicles of Narnia as it is a multi-media interest whose name is not simply "Narnia." —Scouter Sig 14:13, 25 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 Harry Potter

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series. Kbdank71 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~Category:Wikipedians who like Harry Potter to Category:Wikipedians who read Harry Potter like > read, per convention of the subcats of Category:Wikipedians interested in books.~~ Probably qualifies for speedy renaming. - jc37 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Harry Potter. This category is for those who not just read the books, but also for those who watch the movies (and perhaps could be used to support collaboration on HP related video games, etc.). Similar to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I currently don't oppose that. - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Harry Potter has crossed media, keep the words "who like" instead of "interested in" to keep the category name length down. - LA @ 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series or Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter franchise as it is a multi-media interest; simply saying "interested in Harry Potter" sounds like they have a crush on HP himself. —Scouter Sig 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is a broader discussion "somehwhere" about changing the naming convention of "series" to "franchise", I suggest that we stick to using "series", for now. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series - jc37 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main article about the series is located at Harry Potter and the article about the character at Harry Potter (character). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After some research, I've listed both at WP:RM. See also: talk:Harry Potter#Requested move. - jc37 20:21, 30 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 interested in a region

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 (after over a month) - There was a lot of good discussion, but relisting "again" is probably not a good idea (as possibly confusing, for one thing). No prejudice against a new nomination (which should probably consider the suggestions/ideas below). - jc37 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in a region to Category:Wikipedians by regional interest or similar

Nominator's rationale: A category for Wikipedians interested in an unspecified region is not especially useful, so this category should function as a parent category only. To that end, it should be renamed to a title that more accurately reflects its purpose. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This sorely needs a rename (and possible pruning). It seems that this is supposed to be about Political divisions and Country subdivisions, not geography. (Or perhaps it is both, in which case a "split" for clarity is in order.) "Region" is just too unclear. Suggestions welcome. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (and depopulate the single user in the category). I don't particularly have a problem with the broadness of "region", and if that is a problem, we can always add subcategories for "Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by geographic interest" and recategorize as appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could rename it to "Wikipedians by country interest", move the categories for ancient civilisations to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history, and use the broad regional categories (e.g. Africa, the Caribbean) as parent categories for individual country categories. In that way, it would approximate the category structure of Category:Wikipedians by location. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, that sounds like a good idea. Though Category:Wikipedians by interest in countries (or "...in a country") sounds better. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think either of the two offered alternatives ("Wikipedians by country interest" or "Wikipedians by interest in a country") would be an improvement over the current name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Wikipedians by interest in a country" does sound better. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all its subcategories as none of them assist in encyclopedia-building. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting our time. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get people to write an encyclopedia rather than maintaining useless categories is actually an attempt to get them to stop wasting their time. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who has used user categories for collaboration, I can safely say you're wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 27 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) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been open for nearly 13 days and has received relatively little comment. Relisting in lieu of a "no consensus" result. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Re-stating): Support: "We could rename it to "Wikipedians by interest in countries", move the categories for ancient civilisations to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient history, and use the broad regional categories (e.g. Africa, the Caribbean) as parent categories for individual country categories. In that way, it would approximate the category structure of Category:Wikipedians by location." - Only change to the text was to substitute the rename target as discussed above. - jc37 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed my comments directly above from "...in a country" to "...in countries". I'd like to sidestep any potential future drama concerning whether such-n-such name is one country or two. - jc37 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you clarify, please? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to avoid the recurring drama of nationalistic self-identification. As I go through the various countries, there are real life controversies in naming, and questions whether a country is actually two (or more) countries, or a single country. This can possibly get more complicated when dealing with things such as the European Union. I think we're better off staying out of the debate, and if merely making a singular word plural can do so, I'm all for it : ) - jc37 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jc37 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Apparently more discussion is needed. - jc37 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really other than "Interested in Africa" this is a list of countries. But what if someone is interested in Africa or "the Carribean" or the "Middle East?" A rename to "interest by country" would be exclusive of those wikipedians. —Scouter Sig 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been considering nominating the Africa one for deletion as "too broad". But even if kept, then there's always BF's Feb 18 suggestion, above. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as same nameI think that regions are as important as individual countries to study (speaking as a geography student). I think that the category is fine as it is, though needing some structure. Say, "Region > ___ region/continent > country" ? —Scouter Sig 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, which is something we were discussiing further up this discussion (goegraphy, country, etc.) May I ask that you re-read this whole discussion, and comment on the several ideas for a ReOrg? (I'm noting that there now seems to be a consensus for "some kind" of ReOrg, we just seem to be working out the details.) - jc37 15:34, 28 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 by skill

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 close (noting the discussion below) - Feel free to nominate for individual discussion. - jc37 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to discussions below, categories like Wikipedian violinists shouldn't exist, because the it doesn't help wikipedia. According to that, the following categories and supercategories of Wikipedian Violinists should be deleted:

I don't necessarily agree, but if such categories "don't help wikipedia", then why do they exist? Trying to eliminate any double standards... Timneu22 (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This is effectively a procedural mass nomination of multiple category trees that fails to consider the individual utility (or uselessness) of each group of subcategories. Moreover, only the parent category is tagged, so a "delete" outcome - if achieved - could not be implemented. With regard to Category:Wikipedian violinists, one potential use is that a violinist could upload a GFDL-licensed sample of violin music. If that's not a convincing argument for encyclopedic usefulness, I would not object to a nomination of that category. However, a nomination as broad and indiscriminate as this one cannot hope to produce any type of meaningful change. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I nominate each category separately? I think there is a definite inconsistency in WP when it comes to these categories. Timneu22 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think separate nominations of each category grouping would be more conducive to clear discussion, with two caveats. First, you might want to delay a nomination of Category:Wikipedians by media interest, as a number of its subcategories are currently under discussion. Second, it might be prudent to not nominate all of the categories at once, but rather to nominate one or two, wait to see how the discussions are closed, and proceed from there. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 21 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.

March 19

Category:Kate Beckinsale fan/lover

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 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, no indication it is a user category, can not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい！} 04:33, 20 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:Museums members

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 author request. VegaDark (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Museums members by mistake by putting the wrong syntax in Template:User Museums project for a new wikiproject, when I should have created Category:WikiProject Museums members. Could the first one be deleted?— Rod ^talk 09:52, 19 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.

March 17

Category:WikiProject AfD closing participants

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 close - Not to send you to another XfD page, but I believe that this would be best dealt with at WP:MFD. Those commenting below about the WikiProject are only partially right. These days, rather than outright delete a WikiProject, it's sometimes marked as "inactive" or "historical". (As apparently was the case of this one last September.) And since the nom ties the suggested action to the WikiProject's activity status, then that should probably be determined at MFD. That said, as the project is inactive, the category actually is probably speediable under speedy criteria G6. And this closure in no way prevents such an action if it's deemed appropriate. - jc37 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Project is inactive and AfD closing is primarily for Admins. Users should not be calling themselves closing participants when, in general, non-admin closures should be an exception not a norm. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As co-founder of said project. The second co-founder is on wikibreak, as i just came off of, and is also an admin. We are very capable of knowing when to close an afd. Nominater is just mad that I closed his AFD nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try some WP:AGF. The project has been tagged as inactive since September. Obviously the founders are not paying attention to it. Your personal issues with me have nothing to do with it. The category is for an inactive project and thus doesn't need to exist anymore. I also feel regular editors shouldn't be running around claiming to do what is primarily an admin task, but that's another issue.AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How am I not assuming good faith here? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation that this is a retaliatory CfD is not AGF. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend you, but thats exactly what I call this. :) Toughen up your skin. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My skin is fine and I didn't take offense. I could care less of your opinion. I'm just reminding you. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all other WikiProject participant categories, and move this discussion to WP:UCFD where it belongs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from WP:CFD to here where the debate belongs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the Wikiproject still exists. On the surface, the use of the Wikiproject seems questionable, though, so it could be an MfD candidate. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per VegaDark. If the project is deleted, delete the category. Horologium (talk) 00:43, 19 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 administer other MediaWiki sites

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 category has several issues, which were brought out in the discussion below.

First, there's also the precedent of this discussion and it's "sub-discussions". As such, categorising Wikipedians by website should be limited to those websites which are at least reference-based. (See also: Category:Wikipedians by website.)

Second, there is a difference between someone who may "administer" a website, and someone who may be an "adminstrator" of a website. Especially considering that such sites may not have the rules, policies or even the structural breakdown (developers, stewards, bureaucrats, admins, etc) that Wikipedia has. So a rename for clarity would be in order, at the very least (as noted below).

Then there's the question of how useful this information is. Since the software is essentially available for "free", anyone with a computer (and presumably an internet connection) could become an "admin" at their whim. ("My sister installed this cool software on her computer, and she made me an admin.")

And also, since we ascribe to the presumption that admins know at least "some" about the "tools of the trade" (per going through the process at WP:RFA), those in this category likely would indicate little additional knowledge for use in aiding admins (and others) here. If anything, it would appear to be a "vanity" category, created in the hopes of adding "prestige" to those within. Useless on Wikipedia, because, well: "Adminship is no big deal".

So to sum up the discussion below, overall, this category is (to quote shakespeare) "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". - jc37 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who administer other MediaWiki sites

It's not useful to have a category here of users who administer any MediaWiki wiki. .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 06:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely disagree with deleting this. It is quite helpful — this is a great way for Wiki Admins to ask questions to other Wiki Admins. Timneu22 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Wikipedians who administer other WikiMedia sites". It's not notable to categorize all users who administer MediaWiki sites, because that could include just about any site, even one a user created himself. Users who admin other Foundation sites is another story. That's probably what the creator intended anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:25, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Keep and disagree with rename. Experience with the software is useful, even vanity setups. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think there are enough people on Wikipedia who have the requisite experience with the software. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are others with a great deal of experience who are not on Wikipedia. Timneu22 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few people (especially the devs) is all it takes (see diminishing returns)... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If there are others with experience who are not on wikipedia, then they won't be in this category, so why keep it? --Kbdank71 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that a category for Wikipedians who administer other Wikimedia sites would be useful, but I don't think that the same can be said for a category for administrators of any site that uses the MediaWiki software (which is freely available, by the way). Such sites could be used as blogs, forums, attack sites, or something else (e.g. Uncyclopedia). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be very difficult to find a single place to get help on blogs, etc. This category would be a wonderful place to look. Timneu22 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. To what kind of "help on blogs" are you referring? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Equazcion. This definitely has the potential to be helpful, but not as it currently stands. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be limited to Wikimedia sites and subcategorized by more specific details, for example, Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on English Wiktionary, Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on French Wikipedia, Category:Wikipedians who are administrators on German Wikiquote, etc. bd2412 T 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I created the category to include Administrators of other MediaWiki sites, not WikiMedia. Thus, the categories suggested here won't cover it. The intention of the category is to list Admins of other Wikis, for Admins to find other Admins — this category shouldn't be related to WikiMedia projects only. Timneu22 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention was to make it possible for users of MediaWiki software to find each other and ask for help (as you stated above), that's not what user categories are for. Wikipedia isn't the place to get software tech support. The only way this category can be kept is if it aids Wikipedia somehow. Aiding the Wikimedia Foundation is probably close enough to that. It's certainly closer than aiding MediaWiki users in finding technical help. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

So how does it help to have a catgegory like "this user has a cat" or "this user plays the violin" ?

It often doesn't, which is why so many of those categories get deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the categories for pet ownership were deleted several months ago. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Don't need to categorize this. Who cares? This could potentially be anyone who has gone to the effort of starting their own Wiki. Not helpful to the project. I would support a category for those who are admins on other WikiMedia projects, however, but it is clear that that was not the intention of the creation of this category. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks doubtful that VegaDark has unbiased opinions, based on his recent edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.121.70 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks doubtful that you aren't Timneu22 trying to evade the block I gave him. VegaDark (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever accused anyone who voted in a deletion discussion of being unbiased. Bias only matters in closings. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Keeep, because it is useful to know who understands MediaWiki. But delete this and numerous other categories if, as Equazcion says that categories like "user has cats" shouldn't exist. ClintonKu (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category for cat ownership was deleted in a June 2007 discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated Wikipedians by skill, above, as it is a supercategory of "violinists" category. Trying to be consistent.

Another Note. I'm in the "wikipedians who understand parser functions category." This is a quite helpful category because I have contacted others in the category or I have been contacted myself when help was needed with something. I'm thinking that this "Admin of other Media Wiki Sites" category will be as helpful. Timneu22 (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the category for users with a knowledge of parser functions is useful because it has direct relevance to the improvement of template on Wikipedia. But how is this category comparable? What knowledge might the administrator of an unspecified MediaWiki site have that could be useful for Wikipedia? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was leaning toward renaming, but Equazcion sealed it for me; wikipedia is not the place to go for tech support. If you need help with the software, [2] is probably the place to go. If you need help here, you can ask a Wikipedia admin. If you need help on another WikiMedia site, you can ask an admin there. There is really no need for this category at all. --Kbdank71 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you need an admin on another site, go to that site. —Scouter Sig 16:26, 24 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 reality television

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, without prejudice to a deletion nomination for the whole category tree (currently, only the parent is tagged). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who like reality television to Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - current naming conventions of similar cats. - jc37 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it along with all subcategories. (1st choice) followed by rename per nom (and depopulate, since being interested in reality television in general is probably too broad) (2nd choice). All subcategories are "who like" categories, which do not help the encyclopedia. Would possibly support rename of subcategories to "interested in", I suppose as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interest is too vague. Also, "interested in" is longer that "who like". How long do you really want these category names to be? The length of them is getting ridiculous. Shorter names are better names. - LA @ 16:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) stricken @ 18:22, 19 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 MythBusters

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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like MythBusters - single article category. - jc37 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love the show, but no particular reason to have the category. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice show, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legoktm (talk • contribs) 03:49, March 19, 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:02, 19 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 The X Factor

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 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like The X Factor - single user category, and per various precedent, specifically these game shows. - jc37 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While not all user categories must revolve around editing articles, they should revolve around facilitating improvement of the encyclopedia (through, for instance, editing of templates). This category does not do that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Black Falcon put it best, this really does not in any way facilitate the improvement of the encyclopedia and is thus just a bit of so much cruft that clings to our project. Seriously, we are not here so fans can find each other, they can do that on myspace. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:07, 24 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 Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

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 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? - per various precedent, specifically these game shows. - jc37 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No collaborative use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 19 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 Never Mind the Buzzcocks

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 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Never Mind the Buzzcocks - per various precedent, specifically these game shows. - jc37 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knowing "who likes" a particular TV show is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not all Wikipedian categories need to revolve around editing articles. - LA @ 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No collaborative use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 19 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:User en-sco subcats

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 all (after 12 days) - Noting that there were no suggestions to "keep". No prejudice against nominating the parent for deletion. - jc37 17:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-sco-1

Category:User en-sco-2

Category:User en-sco-3

Category:User en-sco-4

Category:User en-sco-5

UpMerge all to Category:User en-sco

All of the rest of the national versions of english have been upmerged, per this discussion. See also the topical index for more examples. - jc37 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge all to Category:User en-sco - as nominator. - jc37 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - including Category:User en-sco (1st choice) followed by upmerge all per nom (2nd choice). Even one category for those who speak Scottish English is too many. There will never be a Scottish English Wikipedia, so the category is useless. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all as per nom, with an eye towards deleting the parent category along with all of the other "national" varieties of English as a group, as per VegaDark and my comments in the previous discussion about these categories here. I suggest upmerging first and then submitting the parent and its siblings as a group to eliminate WAX and OSE wikilawyering at DRV, which is likely to happen, considering the past history of this subject.
The huge blowup last September over these categories was nothing less than a form of nationalism carried into the Babel categories, and has no purpose here. English is English, and there is no ISO differentiation between "British English" and "American English" and "Singapore English" or any of the myriad other varieties that have been quantified by users intent on creating their own little fiefdoms. None of these will ever get a project of their own; the Wikimedia incubator specifically requires an ISO 639 code for a separate wikimedia project. All requests for non-ISO categorized languages and dialects are directed to the "Incubator Plus" at Wikia, offsite. Horologium (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom, VegaDark, and Horologium, as well as per existing consensus and precedent. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 24 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:Eguor admins

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 to delete - That said, there are two underlying suggestions in this discussion that may have consensus in the near future:

Merging to Category:Eguor Wikipedians - This especially since Wikipedia:Eguor admins makes it clear that one belief core to Eguor editors is: "Adminship is no big deal", thus, if so, there should be no problem in merging this category with that of other editors.
Renaming this (and the broader cat above) to some more clear name. As it stands now it's a "not" category ("We're not Rouge admins."), and "not-based" nominations consistantly result in deletion.

Though both of the above were brought up in the discussion, and both deserved extra weight, I'm closing this as "no consensus" specifically so that futher talk-page discussion regarding this may occur. Obviously no prejudice against future nominations (especially if no meaningful discussion has occurred in the meantime). - jc37 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A discussion has started at Category talk:Eguor admins. - jc37 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eguor admins

Basically the same argument as demonstrated at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008#February 13. (The link directs to the discussion for Category:Rouge admins, which was deleted.) Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 12:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unlike Category:Rouge admins, this category isn't meant as a joke, and therefore most arguments for deletion that can be found in the link you provided above don't apply here. --Conti|✉ 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moved here by me from the speedy section since it warrants a discussion. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't think it needs to be deleted, as its so closely tied to Category:Rouge admins, it doesn't make sense for it to exist when the other does not. Sadly, delete. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those who want to keep it, we could at least merge it into Category:Eguor Wikipedians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs)

Merge it into what? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly harmless but if we want to be strictly consistent we ought to delete it. Therefore, Keep, as strict consistency is the bugaboo of... ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since Category:Rouge admins is currently a redlink, it only makes sense that Category:Eguor admins be blue :) krimpet ✽ 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah isn't that sad? We have a whole process dedicated to determining whether a link shows up red or blue. Really makes you wonder... Equazcion •✗/C • 15:29, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the project page is fine and the userbox is fine, but the category serves no purpose other than being a bottom-of-the-page notice. We can dispute the degree to which either this category or the Rouge category was a joke, but that doesn't change the fact that it affords little or no navigational utility and does not facilitate improvement of the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Black Falcon. Category does not benefit encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if community consensus is to delete 'rouge', it makes sense that 'eguor' should be deleted as well. Ral315 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to AGK, the point is that there's no reason to delete "rouge" and keep "eguor" because the philosophy of "eguor" is more popular. The point is that they're distinctly related, "eguor" having evolved from "rouge". I also fail to see how "eguor" conveys an appreciation that the administrator "has declared themselves to have an active interest in editors who are in exactly the position they themselves are—confused". The category, and the page, say nothing about this, or anything close to this. Ral315 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category. My primary argument here is that, unlike Category:Rouge admins (rest in peace), this category plays a practical, useful role: a resource for confused editors to contact an administrator who has declared themselves to have an active interest in editors who are in exactly the position they themselves are—confused. Whilst CAT:ROUGE did not play any significant encyclopedic role, this category is actively improving the efficiency of the Wikipedia system of operations. As an additional comment, in response to Ral315's post (above), I do not see how the deletion of the rouge admins category should automatically equate to the deletion of the eugor admins category: the topic of each's deletion should be addressed separately, and the individual merits of each category considered separately—not a blanket deletion on everything related to admin status, regardless of any connections in between. Just my thoughts. AGK § 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, on the whole, the connection is stronger than just being "related to admin status": this category was created in response to the ROUGE category (whether to mirror it, poke fun at it, or for some combination of reasons), and its current name both reflects and continues that history. By the way, could you please clarify how the category functions as a resource for editors? (Also, if the category has a practical purpose, perhaps it should be renamed to a title that better reflects that purpose...) Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and precedent. While it's not as divisive as the Rouge cat, it's equally limited as a useful grouping. As with the rouge cat, I would not be opposed to listification here. Horologium (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree that it is of limited use, and agree with AGK regarding its usefulness. That its name is possibly confusing is not a reason to delete it - it is a reason to either rename it (which no one has proposed beyond in passing) or the category page should be edited to clarify its purpose. --Iamunknown 17:25, 22 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:Supporters of Franjo Tuđman

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. We have enough precedent for categories like this that WP:SNOW applies, not to mention there is no indication this is a user category which is probably enough to speedy on its own. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supporters of Franjo Tuđman - delete, politically divisive, only one member, used for political soapboxing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't categorise users by support for or opposition to political or social issues (see here). Wikipedia is not a political soapbox, a battleground, or a social networking site. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 18:39, 17 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.

March 15

Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language

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 "Category:Contributors to the [language] Wikipedia" to "Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the [language] Wikipedia" - jc37 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Contributors to other Wikipedias by language to Category:Wikipedian contributors to other Wikipedias by language or similar

or

"interested in". The category seems to be populated mostly by a userbox that does not suggest any collaborative interest, so I would prefer not to rename it to make it an 'interest' category. For this reason (lack of an apparent collaborative purpose/scope), weak delete. The mere fact of having watched and liked the films is not something we should categorise. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't necessarily be opposed to deleting based on BF's reasoning, and now that jc37 has moved the article to (series), that is certainly a better rename option. Don't really have a preference, other than to say that if a category does exist, it should encompass those who wish to collaborate not just on the movies, but all matrix-related articles (such as video games, books, etc.). The addition of "series" at the end makes it seem more geared only towards the movies rather than including the other aspects of Matrix franchise. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose people who like it will more than likely keep an eye on it, interest is just to vague. Plus, my categories are taking up a big enough space on my user page to have "who like" changed to "interested in" would make it even bigger. It would add 5 characters per "like" category, which is a lot of categories on my user page at the moment, since most don't have user templates in template space. - LA @ 20:23, 15 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 understand Cockney rhyming slang

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedians who understand rhyming slang. - jc37 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockney rhyming slang is now a redirect to Rhyming slang, so this at minimum needs to be renamed to match that. However, this looks like a single-article category, and hence could not foster collaboration, so my first choice is deletion. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. This category is reasonably well filled with users. Have they been asked whether they use it for collaboration? They are unlikely to have the category on their watch list, so almost certainly do not know this deletion debate is happening. Rhyming slang can appear on articles other than Rhyming slang itself, so the possibility of collaboration is more widespread than you think. Rhyming slang is also complex and evolves. It often needs help from a friend to understand a new variety of it. This is a useful category and I see no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:41, 15 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.

March 14

Category:Wikipedians interested in film

Category:Wikipedians interested in film - depopulate of all but subcats (making this a parent cat) per previous precedent of "interested in books". Similar to television, below, this is simply too vague in naming to be useful for anything but a parent cat. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate - as nominator. - jc37 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I disagree, and there really wasn't any precedent formed from the books discussion. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate per nom. - But with reservations about "depopulate" noms from now on if we are not able to enforce them. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would force the creation of possibly hundreds of sub-categories. - LA @ 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all categories of those interested in a particular (individual) film have been deleted. Only those interested in film series remain. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of film series. - LA @ 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depopulate, doesn't serve any purpose as it is. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a category for Wikipedians interested in the subject of film or for those interested in one or more specific films? Or, is it just a grouping of people who like to watch films? If it is the first, it should be kept. If it is the second or third, it should be depopulated. Given the ongoing discussion concerning the depopulation of Category:Wikipedians interested in history (see here), I'm starting to think that we shouldn't depopulate categories unless they are explicitly parent categories (that is, they contain some form of "Wikipedians by" in their title). I would not be opposed to a proposal to rename (i.e. repurpose) and depopulate this category, but I'm reluctant to support depopulation under the current name. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a problem in naming (which several of these have). Consider the "books as objects" result. I would strongly support a speedy rename of adding an "s" to "film". That simple change should deal with your concern. - jc37 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's an issue with multiple categories (including, in addition to this one, "interested in television", "interested in books", "interested in history"), but I'm not sure the addition of an "s" to "film" will be enough, especially since it would still leave open the possibility of repopulation of the category. Is there any way that this could be converted into a "Wikipedians by" parent category? (Incidentally, the "books as objects" category is still a single-user category, and the creator did note that he supported deletion if membership didn't increase within a month of creation...) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So something like "Wikipedians by interest in films"? (I still think the "s" is important since it helps distinguish between films as finished products; and film as an art; or as a profession; or, for that matter, as an object.) - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given its lack of specificity, would a category for interest in films (as opposed to the art of film) be useful? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with BF: if the category as is does not just mean "likes to watch movies" but is rather an expression of "the art of film," then it's fine as is. Its subcats do not entirely prove this point, though. —Scouter Sig 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they don't. - jc37 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in television

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

The result of the discussion was: rename and depopulate. Feel free to create less broad categories within our guidelines. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in television to Category:Wikipedians by interest in a television series and depopulate of members except subcats (making it solely a Wikipedia parent category).

Looking over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), it's fairly obvious that there is the potential for confusion over the usage of being "interested in television". This is similar to the "interested in radio", and "interested in books" issues that we have as well. This category is simply too broadly confusing in inclusion criteria (and depending on how you look at it, it's potentially an all-inclusive category). While I know that there are some who would like to see this entire tree deleted, let's at least agree on the rename for clarity first, to try to prevent a closure of "no consensus". - jc37 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and depopulate of members as nominator. - jc37 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and depopulate of users per nom, without prejudice to creation of more clearly-named categories for those who are interested in specific aspects of television technology or history, rather than in watching TV generally. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and depopulate per nom (but with reservations about such noms as mentioned above). VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't depopulate and rename to Wikipedians interested in Television subjects or something similar. If people don't wish to be specific then this is the obvious category they would use. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that there's nothing wrong with people wishing to be vague and non-specific, but why should we categorise that? Categories do not exist to serve those being categorised, but rather those who may make use of a grouping of users. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as that is a more correct title. Depopulate, because this currently serves best as a parent category. However, I think the question needs raising about the appropriateness of the various "Wikipedians who like Show XYZ" categories. As we've discussed before, the "liking" categories typically have a precedent of deletion. This is because liking something does not necessarily equate to wanting (or being able to) write on it. I can tell you, not every person who watches CSI is interested in writing about it. That being said, I oppose renaming them to "users interested in Show XYZ," because that is a mis categorization of the current users. The best course of action would be to depopulate and delete the various show subcategories. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since there may be people in that category interested in television technology. - LA @ 21:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this touches on the part of my comment regarding "creation of more clear-named categories for those who are interested in specific aspects of television technology or history". Would not Category:Wikipedians interested in television technology (see the corresponding Category:Television technology) be a better title for a category with such a focus? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request a suspension of all Wikipedians by media interest and Wikipedians by genre interest UCFDs to give me and others who are interested in these subjects time to reorganize them. The subcategories include comics, film, games, literature, music, news sources, radio, and television. This is a large task, so please give me and other interested editors a chance to sort this out. - LA @ 08:33, 20 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:User tsolyáni

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 both. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No users in the first categoy, 1 user in the second category. "Tsolyáni is one of several languages invented by M. A. R. Barker for the Tékumel Empire of the Petal Throne gaming series". Zero chance of a Wikipedia every being developed in this language. Totally useless. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, as per nom. See Tokipona discussion below for an explanation of why this will never have a Wikipedia edition of its own. Horologium (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - also see prior precedent for fictional or non-existent languages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't mind. However, I'd like to gently point out that the category is not "totally useless", as it can be used for fans of Tsolyáni to find each other on Wikipedia (like other user box categories do for Red Dwarf or Blake's Seven or whatever). There is a small but fervent fan base that does bother to learn the language and practice it (as the tsolyáni-devoted forums on Yahoo prove, for example). Urhixidur (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can still use the "what links here" function on the userbox page to see who is using the userbox to find such people. VegaDark (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Fictional languages don't warrant such categories, in my humble opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい！} 04:44, 20 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:User wenedyk

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 both. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, this is a made up language inventend for a story about an alternate history timeline. The article on the story that invented the language has been AfD'd (Ill Bethisad). We definitely don't need a language category for this. Zero chance a Wikipedia will ever be developed in this "language". VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nom. Babelcruft. See Tokipona discussion below for more on why this will never have a wikipedia edition of its own. Horologium (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom - also see prior precedent for fictional or non-existent languages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Fictional languages don't warrant such categories, in my humble opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい！} 04:48, 20 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:User tokipona

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 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructed language created a mere 7 years ago. No ISO code. Three fluent speakers, according to the article. There will never be a Wikipedia in this language, and if by some miracle there is one day, the categories can be re-created at that time. Until then, we don't need categories for this. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. However, I have to note that there actually was a Tokipona Wikipedia, which was shut down and banished to Wikia, along with Klingon and a couple of other eccentric wikis. The wikia version appears to have 366 articles. Under the current rules for creation of new wikis, this (and the other two "languages" nominated in this batch) are not eligible for their own wikipedia editions. m:List of Wikipedias#Test Wikipedias states "Languages without an ISO code can go to the Incubator Plus, the place where rejected tests from the Wikimedia Incubator go to." (For those who don't follow links, Incubator Plus is located on Wikia.) Horologium (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Horologium - could not facilitate translation efforts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete most Definitely delete the additional level (-1, -2, -3, -4) categories, but I can see keeping the base tokipona category.. but wouldn't be upset if the whole set were gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - given the extremely low number of speakers, and that we have no translation or localization needs that these would facilitate, a category serves little collaborative purpose. krimpet ✽ 17:35, 17 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:Phantastic Wikipedians

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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Phantom of the Opera for clarification & per standard naming conventions. Alternatively, based on the category description, it could be argued the category members are only interested in Erik (The Phantom of the Opera), in which case I could support deletion as a single-article category. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Phan (and the category intro), it is merely for the single character. (See also this edit], which refers to this edit.) No prejudice against creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in The Phantom of the Opera. - jc37 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37 - narrow scope; also, the userboxes that populate the category (User:Major Despard/Userboxes/Phantom No Return, User:Doma 89/Userboxes/phantom) don't seem to have any direct relation to a desire or ability to collaborate on articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 17 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:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Real Ghostbusters. All members but one are added through the userbox, as noted by User:Black Falcon, below. I'll leave a note on the single user's talk page, explaining. No prejudice against creation of a category for the film series. - jc37 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wikipedians interested in Ghostbusters per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three of four users in the category are there due to {{User gbfan}}, which is a userbox for The Real Ghostbusters, an animated television series. Thus, delete as too narrow in scope and as populated by a userbox that doesn't suggest any collaborative merit (1st choice) or rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Real Ghostbusters per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in television (2nd choice). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion based on the above, but I would say independent creation of the category should be allowed based on several pages that could be collaborated on that are listed at Ghostbusters (disambiguation). VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somewhat per Black Falcon but expand it to Category:Wikipedians who like Ghostbusters for the whole franchise. - LA @ 20:17, 15 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:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wikipedians interested in the Three Stooges per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably comparable to a set of nominations involving the Marx brothers at CFD and DRV (resulting in deletion). In addition, we don't categorise by actor(s) both at CFD and here at UCFD, per much precedent. - jc37 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to deletion per that reasoning. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we shouldn't categorize per actor is more about the amount of content/articles that it would cover, rather than it really being about the number. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. A lot of content is tied to the Three Stooges, and it would seem reasonable to me to make a user interest category for it. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jc37. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37. I might have been inclined to agree with Ned Scott, but the fact that the text of the userbox ("This user is a knucklehead") does not have any clear connection to collaborative interest makes me favour deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:12, 21 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 the Matrix series

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 (after 10 days) - Feel free to renominate. - jc37 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wikipedians interested in The Matrix (franchise) per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in film and to match the article name at The Matrix (franchise). VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedians interested in The Matrix series (per current convention of the categories) or Wikipedians interested in The Matrix (series) (per naming conventions of such articles) - leaning towards the former rather than the latter. (franchise) isn't in the naming conventions, and appears to have been one of a sequence of bold moves. (Which I'll be reverting.) - jc37 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming "who like" --> "interested in". The category seems to be populated mostly by a userbox that does not suggest any collaborative interest, so I would prefer not to rename it to make it an 'interest' category. For this reason (lack of an apparent collaborative purpose/scope), weak delete. The mere fact of having watched and liked the films is not something we should categorise. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't necessarily be opposed to deleting based on BF's reasoning, and now that jc37 has moved the article to (series), that is certainly a better rename option. Don't really have a preference, other than to say that if a category does exist, it should encompass those who wish to collaborate not just on the movies, but all matrix-related articles (such as video games, books, etc.). The addition of "series" at the end makes it seem more geared only towards the movies rather than including the other aspects of Matrix franchise. VegaDark (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose people who like it will more than likely keep an eye on it, interest is just to vague. Plus, my categories are taking up a big enough space on my user page to have "who like" changed to "interested in" would make it even bigger. It would add 5 characters per "like" category, which is a lot of categories on my user page at the moment, since most don't have user templates in template space. - LA @ 20:23, 15 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 understand Cockney rhyming slang

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedians who understand rhyming slang. - jc37 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockney rhyming slang is now a redirect to Rhyming slang, so this at minimum needs to be renamed to match that. However, this looks like a single-article category, and hence could not foster collaboration, so my first choice is deletion. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. This category is reasonably well filled with users. Have they been asked whether they use it for collaboration? They are unlikely to have the category on their watch list, so almost certainly do not know this deletion debate is happening. Rhyming slang can appear on articles other than Rhyming slang itself, so the possibility of collaboration is more widespread than you think. Rhyming slang is also complex and evolves. It often needs help from a friend to understand a new variety of it. This is a useful category and I see no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:41, 15 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.

March 13

Category:Wikipedians in Gary

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Gary, Indiana for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 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 from Billings Montana

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians from Billings, Montana. Adding comma. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 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 from Baton Rouge

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support this action. Sf46 (talk) 01:03, 15 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 in Allentown

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) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians in Allentown, Pennsylvania for clarification. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 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:Users that are weird

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 - G1 (nonsense) - jc37 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly named, and does not help encyclopedia in the least. VegaDark (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:56, 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.

Category:User enc and all subcategories

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all - noting also: this precedent as well. - jc37 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This language is not helpful to have categories for. There will never be a Cajun English Wikipedia, so there will never be a purpose to seek out users in such categories. The userbox notice should be more than sufficient. Additionally, all the subcategories are already unpopulated except for a template page. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or merge all to Category:User en as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. More babelcruft. There is a Cajun French language that is recognized (ISO 639-3 code frc), but not "Cajun English". Additionally, enc is the ISO 639-3 code for En, an obscure Vietnamese language. Horologium (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I do not believe that these could ever assist translation efforts and, thus, facilitate collaboration on articles. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 17 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:Users that also have a WikiAlmanac account

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 C1 - empty. No prejudice against creation of Category:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiAlmanac, presuming: a.) creation of a related (cited/referenced) article. b.) interest of 4 or more members. Noting of course that the above does not prevent further nomination at editorial discretion. (Noting also that the creator of the category, and the single "keep" below has been indef blocked.) - jc37 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlmanac is a non-notable Wiki created a mere 7 days ago. In fact, that article probably meets the A7 speedy deletion requirement. At minimum needs a rename to conform to the naming convention in Category:Wikipedians by website. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - since the website is still undeveloped and essentially maintained by a single user, it's hard to tell whether this could eventually become a useful "by website" category. However, presently and for the foreseeable future, it is not and the category should be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - It is a website, it is notable, and if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a nice growing infomative encyclopedia, I suggest you keep it. Nothing 444 00:33, 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.

Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists

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. While this does not exactly meet any one of the specific speedy criteria, the "snowball clause" applies. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who are inclusionists to Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians

Categories are redundant. VegaDark (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 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.

March 10

Category:Wikipedians interested in books

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. Kbdank71 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Wikipedians interested in books. What to do with "books as objects" may be determined by this discussion. (Possibly upmerge to "by interest".) Once that cat is moved, this could be speedied as "empty". - jc37 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, ~~didn't we just do this two weeks ago?~~ -- Ned Scott 01:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did just do this. [3], [4],[5]. Was this a mistake? o.O -- Ned Scott 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we are, the other CfD. I guess that means this is a more focused relisting? In any case, keep per my comments there. Also, did someone depopulate this category already? I was pretty sure we weren't discussing an empty one the last time. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it was empty of users and contained just two other categories, both of which have been moved to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The "literature" naming is obviously clearer, especially for authors. (Noting that someone else created the cat.) This left a cat that would be empty save for a subcat of a single Wikipedian.
It's been pretty well established that "Wikipedians interested in books", as a category name, is simply too vague. So this is a question of whether it should exist as a parent category. (To be honest, I nearly just moved the subcat to Category:Wikipedians by interest, but even after the several discussions, it's still only a single member category.) - jc37 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, since no one was really interested in being categorized like this, and it would require a rename (and possibly a change in it's inclusion criteria) to be more practical, I'll retract my keep. -- Ned Scott 09:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the subcat to Category:Wikipedians by interest. VegaDark (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where else would all of the sub-categories go? Are you planning on deleting every sub-category of this category? I was planning on creating more sub-categories for the authors and series I read since I can't seem to keep myself in this general one. - LA @ 20:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategories have been relocated to Category:Wikipedians interested in literature. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:18, 15 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 read Tolkien

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) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who read Tolkien to Category:Wikipedians who read J. R. R. Tolkien adding J. R. R. per J. R. R. Tolkien. Probably qualifies for speedy renaming. - jc37 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 18:28, 10 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 play Scrabble

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. Kbdank71 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Scrabble - single article cat. Should be deleted for the same reasons that the individual video game cats were deleted. - jc37 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm not sure if there are enough articles on this subject to support collaboration or not, knowing "who plays" scrabble is not helpful. Neutral on an "interested in" version though. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the thought did pop in my head.. "quick, find a Wikipedian who can play Scrabble! The server is on the fritz and we can only make articles out of these letters... " -- Ned Scott 06:01, 15 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 play Diplomacy

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. Kbdank71 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Diplomacy - single article cat. Should be deleted for the same reasons that the individual video game cats were deleted. - jc37 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 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 play German-style board games

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. Kbdank71 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games - "For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek." - Populated by User:Aldaron/BGG.

Essentially a "Wikipedians by gaming website" masquerading as a "by interest" category. - jc37 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a "Wikipedians by gaming website" category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 16 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.

March 9

Category:Wikipedians who play tennis

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 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as tennis does not imply either an above-average knowledge of the sport or 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. Also see the discussion for the related "basketball" category.

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:43, 12 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.

March 7

Category:User enc-0

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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category. All others have been deleted. All the other nonsensical "Cajun English" categories should be deleted as well, but I'll leave that for another nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 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 love Wikipe-tan

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 - apparently with creator's understanding. (As an aside, in this editor's opinion, while the usage of this category is indeed questionable, this doesn't even come close to the least useful category I've seen : ) - jc37 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This user loves Wikipe-tan, the cutest personification of Wikipedia". One of the least useful categories I have seen in a long time. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building. It seems that the category was created solely to supplement the userbox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to comment as the author - I thought it is normal practice to do it this way - to create userbox and then category. Well, if there is problem with that, I can delete the category (and the category code in the userbox) manually. --Have a nice day. Running 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is normal practice to do both (because many userbox creators don't read the relevant guideline), but that's not the way it's supposed to be. Wikipedia's guidelines for userbox creation state (bold in original): Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default. Userbox creation is generally given much wider latitude than user category creation, and when new and non-functional categories are created, the whole UCFD process has to be spun up to remove something that should not have been created in the first place. Horologium (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom (just in case my comment above did not make my position clear). Horologium (talk) 22:54, 10 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 play sudoku

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 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Tons of people have played sudoku at least once, and additionally just because someone plays sudoku does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Finally, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - comparable to Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube (see CFD). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:48, 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.

Category:Wikipedians who like Kakuro

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 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help Wikipedia in any way to categorize these users. Just because someone "likes" Kakuro does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contirbute to the article. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - comparable to Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube (see CFD). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:49, 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.

Category:Wikipedians who play fantasy sports

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 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of people play or have played a fantasy sport at least once. Just because someone plays fantasy sports does not mean they have any interest or higher ability to contribute to Fantasy sport. Also, this subject is too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 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 want a mogwai

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. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. krimpet ✽ 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. Was tempted to speedy delete as such. Tons of precedent to delete, as categorizing wikipedians by desire does not contribute to the encyclopedia in the least. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Gaahhhhh. nonsense. Horologium (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be other Wikipedians who want a mogwai, and if we enable them to find each other, they could collaborate on articles pertaining to mogwais. I'm flabbergasted by this attempt to steamroll the mogwai initiative. For shame. (someone that doesn't like me should save this discussion in case I ever accept an RfA nomination). Equazcion •✗/C • 13:32, 11 Mar 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.

March 6

Category:Wikipedians from Worcester

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 Category:Wikipedians from Worcester to Category:Wikipedians in Worcester, Massachusetts - jc37 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians from Worcester to Category:Wikipedians in Worcester, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: This category was recently discussed and renamed to the present title; however, there was some confusion regarding its actual purpose due to an ambiguous userbox... so here we are again. The user page of the sole user in the category states that he is actually not from Worcester, but rather resides there. Also, since there is more than one place called Worcester, it's better to include the name of the US state in the category title. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Looking at the category name, I would not have guessed we were talking about the town in Massachusetts, and I'm American. Horologium (talk) 13:30, 11 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 play the Mellophone

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 Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone to Category:Wikipedian mellophone players - While the name appears to be a logical presumption, in looking over the article, and its associated links, I didn't find a single example of "mellophonist". - jc37 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play the Mellophone to Category:Wikipedian mellophonists or Category:Wikipedian mellophone players

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. I am listing the nomination here, as opposed to the speedy nominations section, because I'm not certain whether "mellophonists" or "mellophone players" is more accurate. (Both terms receive an approximately equal number of hits in Google.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to either per nom, pending further discussion. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 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.

March 5

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN

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 Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota - jc37 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN to Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota

Speedy rename to expand the postal abbreviation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to dated section at 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I notice that Apple Valley, Minnesota has a population of less than 50,000, which has previously been a standard for deletion. I also notice, however, that this category has 6 users, which distinguishes this category from past cases. I would recommend renaming to Category:Wikipedians in Dakota County, Minnesota to increase the scope of the category to a reasonable size. If no consensus for that, I support renaming per nom. That being said, this should probably be moved to the dated section for further comment. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a population of ca. 45500, it's just slightly below the informal cutoff point. The metro population is listed as nearly 3 million but I doubt that's accurate (I've left a note on the article's talk page), considering that Minnesota has a total population of about 5 million. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That figure is indeed correct, as the metro area includes a big chunk of Minnesota and a portion of Wisconsin as well. The Twin Cities are not too far from the state border, so their suburbs spill over to the neighboring state. In fact, the most recent census bureau estimate for the metro area is almost 3.2 million. [6] I have a link to that spreadsheet—the most recent metro area population estimates—on my user page, in the "Links for editing" section, should you ever need to verify figures for any others. Horologium (talk) 18:04, 6 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.

Humanist categories

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 both. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secular Humanist Wikipedians to Category:Secular humanist Wikipedians

Category:Spiritual Humanist Wikipedians to Category:Religious humanist Wikipedians

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation and match the the title of the main articles: Secular humanism and Religious humanism. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:15, 5 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 with approved alternate accounts

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 Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts - jc37 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts to Category:Wikipedians with alternate accounts

The inclusion of "approved" in this category title gives the illusion of some sort of approval process, which does not currently exist. The category description already explains that having an alternate account is ok if in compliance with WP:SOCK. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What use are all these categories? Do we need to know who has alternate accounts? Does it help the project? I do have an alternative account, but see no need for it to be in a category. It is mentioned on my user page. --Bduke (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a valid reason to support deletion? There are admins out there who don't put themselves in the admin user category (some don't even have userpages). -- Ned Scott 04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spell it out. "What use ..?" - None. "Do we need ..?" - No. "Does it help ..?" - No. "see no need .." - it does not help the Project. I thought that could be inferred from my "delete" comment. --Bduke (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're pretty much wrong on each one of those points, but thanks for making it clear what you meant. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you could return the favour and explain why I am wrong. What use to the project are these categories? --Bduke (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Useful, but I agree it needs a better name. --Kbdank71 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I would very much like to continue having a category of declared alternative accounts. It helps clarify a great many things, and, per BEANS, I am not going to into details. It would clarify even more, if listing were compulsory. DGG (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename DGG hit the nail on the head...but anyway, the category is needed, and there is no approval process. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per DGG. This category helps promote transperancy. GlassCobra 22:21, 13 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:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Lucasbfr

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 - The main consensus seems to be to close this in order to subsequently have a "broader" discussion. - jc37 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As I understand it, this sort of category is not allowed, to prevent millions of unnecessary categories from being created. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was clearly intended in all good faith but seems a bit overenthusiastic - this category won't harm the encyclopaedia and probably assists transparency. Orderinchaos 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't care less on the fate of this category, since I do know my accounts, but this is created by the {{User Alternate Acc}} template, so i'm pretty sure that this is intended that way. Also note that we create a category when we mark sockpuppets, so I don't think there is a problem in marking legitimate accounts. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested; moved to dated section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the category into Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. As I see it, we have two options here:
1. Speedily close this nomination, perhaps in favour of a more general discussion - at UCFD (in the form of a mass nomination) or on some other discussion page - regarding whether {{User Alternate Acc}} should categorise user pages, or
2. Leave this nomination open so that it can serve as a test case.
I essentially agree with the nominator's rationale, and only offer the first option in light of the fact that any edit to Template:User Alternate Acc will affect all subcategories of Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a way that listifying such categories (to one big list of all users and their alternate accounts) will work? I don't like the prospect of how many categories this would allow creation of, but the info should exist somewhere. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Alternate accounts, Wikipedia:List of alternate accounts of Wikipedians, or some similarly-titled page could work? I would support deletion even in the absence of listification, since I can think of little use for these types of categories. In order for the user page of an account to appear in this type of category, an editor must disclose which alternate accounts he or she has. Once that's done, the user page ties the accounts together and the category provides little added value. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Alternate Acc is a good idea and better than Template:User Alternate Acct, but it should not put the account into this type of category. They should all be deleted. I suggest closing htis discussion, and opening a new general discussion. Just another case of "Templates good; categories bad". --Bduke (talk) 02:21, 6 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 interested in police work

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 Category:Wikipedians interested in police work to Category:Wikipedians interested in law enforcement - jc37 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in police work to Category:Wikipedians interested in law enforcement

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (law enforcement - a disambiguation page) and of WikiProject Law Enforcement. In addition, the scope of "law enforcement" is more defined and more universal than that of "police work", which can vary from country to country. That is, whereas the activity of law enforcement is essentially identical across the globe, the specific duties and powers of police agencies can and do vary significantly (for instance, compare the mandate of police agencies in Iceland or Denmark to those in Colombia and Iraq). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. GlassCobra 22:18, 13 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.

March 4

Category:Wikipedians interested in Achaemenid Empire

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) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Achaemenid Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Achaemenid Empire

Speedy rename to add "the". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:53, 4 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.

March 3

Category:Wikipedians by role-playing game and subcategories

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all without prejudice for (re-)creation of "interested in" versions. I have restored Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons for such usage as may be wanted/warranted. The result is "delete" rather than "merge", because the intent of the categories as indicated by the several populating userboxes is clearly "who play", without indication of being interested in collaborating on the topic. This is comparable to the recent closing of the CCG-related categories. - jc37 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating-

Users who simply play these games are probably not interested in contributing to the articles on those games. We already have WikiProjects for at least some of these, as well as an over-arching RPG one, so joining that is preferable to using these categories if you do want to contribute. If you wish to just state the fact you play the game(s), a userbox or comment is fine. At minimum the parent category should be depopulated of individual users as too broad for collaborative purposes, and they should be renamed as 'users interested in' to give some collaborative use, though some of the sub-categories are possibly too narrow anyway. In any case, as I've said, such categories would be redundant to our WikiProjects. J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. "who play" ≠ "interested in collaborating on". Doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize which users have played particular games or not. Stuff like Dungeons and Dragons is probably a large enough topic to facilitate collaboration, but the current category is not named for that. I'd probably support keeping an "interested in" category for that though. As for the others, it looks like they are too narrow even for an "interested in" category. VegaDark (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so change all to "interested in", which is presumably the case. Not everyone has adopted the method of working in wikiProjects yet. I dont see why any of these should be too narrow.DGG (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to presume that "play" = "interested in"? There are a whole host of activities that everyone does, but that doesn't mean they have any interest in collaborating on articles about those activities. I'm not insisting that this is the case with the categories involved in this nomination (I haven't yet taken a look at how they're populated), but I think a blanket presumption regarding interest is more likely to lead to miscategorisation than anything else. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are fine as they are. Why are all of these type categories being nominated for deletion just because they do not facilitate collaboration. Why are all of the community building categories being deleted. I don't want to have to go to the article, click Special:Whatlinkshere, then choose the User namespace, click OK, and then wait for it to show me every user page that is linked to that article just to find out who might play Dungeons and Dragons. I would rather have a category where I can find all of the other players of the game. Please, leave something that builds the community. - LA @ 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask a general question: why would you want or need to find out which Wikipedians play D&D or some other game? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the burning desire to know who else in the Wikipedia community actually plays the game. Interest does not denote experience with the subject. A person who is "interested" may only be interested in making the articles about the subject poor by draining the energy from them or the interest is by tagging every article about the subject for deletion. There are people whose only interest in the subject is to destroy it. I wouldn't object to a category for the Wikipedians who think Dungeons and Dragons is Satanic. It would keep the players and the objectors seperate. My question is, why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution? I would like know which Wikipedians play Dungeons and Dragons, are in Maryland, use ICQ, and have webpages. As people have been telling me recently in their objections to a merge, Wikipedia is not paper. It is nice to know who I can talk to outside Wikipedia about certain subjects. Just because I am insterested in geology doesn't mean that I am going to edit those articles. I know almost nothing about the subject, I just like looking at the pretty rocks. - LA @ 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the third paragraph about me on my user page, you will see that playing Dungeons and Dragons has sparked my interest in many non-gaming fields. - LA @ 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a number of points, but all essentially revolve around the question: "Why can't we keep user categories that have nothing to do with article contribution?" My short answer is that Wikipedia is not and should not become a directory of users grouped by every possible trivial characteristic. We should not maintain lists of people who support Hezbollah, miss Steve Irwin, don't own automobiles, like spicy food, enjoy soaking in Pepto-Bismol while wearing a sailor hat and clipping someone's toenails, or have any other characteristic that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. (By the way, the first four were actual categories and the latter is a reference to Rat Race -- a category for that particular fetish has, thankfully, not yet been created.) I think editors should be free to share with others as many of their habits, desires, and preferences as they like on their user page, but there is no reason for us to keep lists on the basis of these characteristics. For a more detailed explanation of my thoughts on the matter, please see this still-incomplete page.
That said, my comment above applies to user categories generally and not necessarily to the categories included in this nomination. I am still neutral on most of these categories, as I'm trying to think of whether there is any plausible means by which they could faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my experience, nothing "builds the community" as much as successful collaboration on an article. It is actions and communications that build community, not an impersonal, automatically-generated directory of users. Enforcing the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of gamers or people by some other random personal detail unrelated to the encyclopedia does not undermine community-building. Thus, for me the only question is whether these categories facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, in light of the fact that "who play" does not imply "who are interested in collaborating on articles about" or "who can contribute non-OR encyclopedic content to articles about". Therefore,

Delete Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or merge into the D&D category - excessively limited collaborative scope: does not have a head article, Advanced D&D is just one of several updated versions of D&D
Delete Category:Wikipedians who play Big Eyes, Small Mouth - limited collaborative scope: single-article category
Weak delete Category:Wikipedians who play Shadowrun - single-user category; perhaps encourage the user to switch to an "interested in" category
Weak delete Category:Wikipedians who play World of Darkness games - single-user category; perhaps encourage the user to switch to an "interested in" category
Neutral on the rest, per discussion with LA elsewhere. ~~pending a response/clarification to my question to LA above~~

Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons into Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons. AD&D is no longer used by Wizards of the Coast for the newer versions of D&D and there is no need to be that specific. - LA @ 16:26, 6 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:Wikipedian moms

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 - G4: recreation of material deleted per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by parenthood. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Orphaned and lonely, only one user The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:26, 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:Theist Wikipedians

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 to delete - No prejudice against renomination (as in any "no consensus" closure) to discuss this for use as merely as a parent category. - jc37 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has been nominated for deletion three times already, and I do not wish to restart a debate about whether these types of categories are inherently collaborative. However, I think that prior discussions failed to consider several key issues unique to this category, probably because the prior discussions were group nominations of Category:Wikipedians by religion or Category:Wikipedians by philosophy.

This category has a relatively vague scope, and it doesn't give us any especially useful information about the users it contains. It tells us that they believe in the existence of a deity or deities, but doesn't tell us which one(s). The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities. Moreover, this category is redundant to other existing categories, such as the specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians interested in theism, and does not make a unique contribution to the encyclopedia.

Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "The category is also nearly all-inclusive; 80-90% of the world's population holds a belief in the existence of one or more deities". VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 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, jc37 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no problem with this category. I personally believe in God, I don't adhere to any particular religion, and, at least in my country, believing in God is not something "almost everyone does". Stating that one believes in God and not mentioning any religion is a significant religious and philosophical statement in itself that users ought to be allowed to express on par with adherents of various religious and philosophical denominations. __meco (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to limit anyone's self-expression; however, userboxes and user page notices already serve the purpose of self-identification. What reason is there to maintain a directory of Wikipedians who are theists? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, user category does nothing to advance the encyclopedia. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a meta-category for subcategories. Even user-cats benefit from category trees (and a lot more should fall under this one). bd2412 T 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by religion already serves as an even more inclusive parent category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that token, Category:Wikipedians already serves as an even more inclusive parent category. __meco (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion could be placed into Category:Theist Wikipedians, and vice versa. The same is obviously not true of either of those two categories and Category:Wikipedians. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. On this one, I think that several of the assumptions made here are fundamentally wrong, and the demographics of Wikipedia need to be taken into account. While it is true that a sizable majority of people in the Americas, Northern Africa and the Arabian Subcontinent, and those on the Indian subcontinent are theistic, that is not so for much of Europe and Asia (where Atheism and Buddhism, respectively, are widespread). Further, the demographics here tend to skew towards non-theism; groups such as the Brights are severely over-represented in Wikipedia, and parody religions such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (which are largely unknown outside the insular world of the internet) have a lot of interest here. I'd like to see the category turned into another organizational (parent-only) category, with no editors as direct members, but there should be a distinction between theistic and non-theistic beliefs. Horologium (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of our business how WPedians want to characterise their religion. it is perfectly possible that someone may want to characterise himself this way without meaning anything more specific, so I'd keep it a a real category, not just a parent one. DGG (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just as valid as Category:Christian Wikipedians in my mind. Might seem vague, but you could say the same thing about some people's beliefs. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 5 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.

March 1

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers

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 - Feel free to continue to "raise awareness" through the (presumably) already existing userpage notices (such as userboxes). - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unlike similar categories for recent changes and new page patrollers, this category does not facilitate collaboration. There is no special knowledge or expertise that random page patrollers possess that could be useful for someone else. It's just a matter of clicking "Random article" and editing. The userbox is adequate to convey this information; there is no need to maintain a listing of random page patrollers.

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more of a trivial fact. I agree, a userbox is enough to convey this message. Youngwebprogrammer (Talk)
Delete per nom, although I am not necessarily convinced the other two categories mentioned in the nom are particularly useful either. What purpose would one have to seek out a new page patroller or a recent changes patroller? I guess that argument can be saved for another UCFD, however. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could perhaps seek out advice regarding effective techniques for new page/recent changes patrolling (e.g. how to spot questionable articles or edits, whether/how to tag an article or revert an edit, what notice/warning to issue). Of course, all of this information could be obtained by posting a question at one of any number of talk pages, so perhaps the categories are not all that useful after all. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good way of improving WP, and I think there's no reason to deprecate it. I thik a lot of people actually do this--many more than list themselves here--and perhaps seeing this will encourage others. DGG (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that random page patrol is a good way of improving articles (in fact, I am one of the users in this category), but how does the category affect improvement? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Raising awareness for a method and encouraging others is a very good and logical reason for a user category, and certainly does help us build the encyclopedia. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "raising awareness"? How does the mere existence of a category raise awareness beyond what is already done by Wikipedia:Random page patrol and the "Random article" link in the standard WP navigation box on the left side of the screen. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:30, 5 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:Users who push random buttons

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]

This is a category for people who are interested in(?) the template mentioned at Wikipedia:Random Button. This apparently isn't even a Wikiproject (and rightfully so, as I can't imagine you can make a Wikiproject out of that) and as far as I can see serves no purpose to categorize. At very minimum needs a rename to get rid of "Users" at the start, as per standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much too vague; does not seem to be oriented toward collaboration. Wikipedia:Random Button#Userbox states that users should "use this userbox to note that [they] press The Random Button or ... other random buttons". OK, but ... so what? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems almost juvenile and has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a userbox at most, but not a category of users. Youngwebprogrammer (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is another category for userpage template usage. Horologium (talk) 17:22, 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:User LB22

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 - criterion G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). I will inform the user of the Special:Prefixindex function. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual user category, precedent to delete at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Personal userspace categories. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 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 who are Admin Coaches

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 Category:Wikipedians who are Admin Coaches to Category:Wikipedian admin coaches. - jc37 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to Category:Wikipedian admin coaches (standard naming convention, capitals). VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/speedy rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Incidentally, which parent category is most suitable for this case: Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status or Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration (or one of the subcats thereof)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:06, 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 like Devil May Cry

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]

Per lots of precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by video game. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all video game categories that regard wikipedians who play certain video games, have been deleted. This one should be no exception. Youngwebprogrammer (talk) 19:14, 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 interested in travel

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]

Nominator's rationale: This category was originally created as Category:Wikipedians who travel. It was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16 in an effort to shift focus toward collaboration, but I believe that the rename may have introduced miscategorisation by placing in this category people who like to travel but have no interest in the subject of traveling (see the category description). In addition, I don't believe that this category is viable even as a genuine interest category, simply because the topic of "travel" is too broad and ambiguous (see Category:Travel). (See also the deletion discussions for the related Category:Wikipedians who visit countries and its child categories.)

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but possibly allow recreation as a parent category if appropriate subcategories pop up (but perhaps such a parent category would be better named Category:Wikipedians by travel interest. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 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 interested in hexadecimal numbers

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 of creating one with a clearer name, as suggested in the discussion. - jc37 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The collaborative scope of this category, if any, is limited to one or a few articles only. Also, judging from the text of the userbox that populates the category (User:Tilman Piesk/hexadecimal), this seems to be a recreation of Category:Wikipedians who like hexadecimal (CFD discussion).

Delete as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, the collaborative scope of this category is not limited to articles like hexadecimal, binary, web colours, nibble, byte, powers of two and things like that, but also includes logic related topics like bitwise operations, logic gates, truth tables, logical connectives, propositional calculus (the nibbles link them together) and even articles like Fermat numbers and Mersenne numbers. Not to forget BBP-type formulae.

I understand, that the base preference categories have been deleted - to know that someone prefers base 12 or 60 is indeed not really helpful, and the only related article seems to be highly composite number. But binary numbers with a power-of-two number of digits (that means: hexadecimal numbers) are a intersection of so many fields, that I consider it helpful, to have a category for Wikipedians interested in this intersection.

(By the way: The intersection (set theory) matches the four digit binary number 0001, and thus the hexadecimal 1. Just an example.)

So please don´t be too radical : ) The existence of this category is not a step back to things like Category:Wikipedians who like ternary or Category:Wikipedians who like hexagesimal. Greetings, Tilman Piesk (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A category that would support collaboration on all those pages sounds good, but I'm not convinced the current name reflects that very well. Any rename option you can think of that would better convey all those articles as potential collaboration topics? VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until there is a better name. DGG (talk) 06:50, 5 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.