Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/November 2006

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | User | Archive
(Redirected from Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006)
< October 2006 December 2006 >

November 30

edit

Category:Member League of Copyeditors

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2006 (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 Weekly Podcaster

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2006 (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:Non-stereotypical teenage Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to category:Teenage Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is unique. Being a teenager that's not in this category suggests that you're stereotypical, which is highly unlikely to be true. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 11:47, 30 November 2006 (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 Eagle 101

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no action taken. This category must be relisted with all others, because the only change is to a template which will affect all of them. If all are approved for deletion, the change can be made.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Eagle 101 - this category has only one "test account" listed, which the user quite clearly lists on his userpage. — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:00, 30 November 2006 (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:Not Drug Free Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Not Drug Free Wikipedians - A "not" category.Also redundant with Category:Drug-using Wikipedians. VegaDark 09:39, 30 November 2006 (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.

November 29

edit

Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes - While I understand that there are those who support and oppose various legal issues, this one was resolved by consensus. See also Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about image use. So I believe whatever purpose it once served, it's now just a category that we should all belong to : ) - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (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 more than the sum of their userboxes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes - Sounds like a "not" category. (And rather vague at that.) - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (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.

November 28

edit

Category:Wikistress

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians by wikistress level.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (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.

November 26

edit

Locations

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: closing all as no consensus until a workgroup comes together to make a rational plan.--Mike Selinker 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The following discussions (from/of/on/born in) should probably all be read in order to determine concensus. Comments regarding each have been posted at times in only one or the other of the discussions. (I suppose I should have made this a single nomination, my apologies) - jc37 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Standard for Locations

edit

The Location discussion appears to me that it will never end, as their is no official policy. Arguments for and against how a User category location can be described will always have objectors. I for one got extremely upset in a discussion on locations. But I do realise some order needs to be brought to locations.

The primary aim of any category is to aid in collaboration, so how do you set a wikipedia standard for all locations whether from/born/living/interest in/affinity for or something else. How would "passing through" aid collaboration? I am not for or against any particular method, but can someone come up with a standard that allows people to express where they are from, but also and more importantly to express what they wish to collaborate on.

There is no point in having all these discussions as the outcome on one discussion may be the direct opposite of another and so no standard is ever set and someone who prefers one method will challenge an already agreed contrary method. Perhaps this discussion on locations should have a dedicated area and instead of having all these independent discussions below, just have one discussion on how to sort them all out. NilssonDenver 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories up for discussion

edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia

edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Glasgow

edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Iowa

edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Spokane

edit

Category:Wikipedians born in Texas

edit
Delete all or Rename, removing the word "born", to match other location categories. Otherwise, we'll eventually have (at least) two locations for every wikipedian: Where they were born, and where they live now. (I'm choosing to avoid the "from" confusion). - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting since I relisted the related "from" discussion below. - jc37 12:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I was thinking that "from" is or would be used to mean "where I grew up", while "in" is or would be used to mean "where my home is now (even if I travel a great deal, etc)". Maybe a survey somewhere to see if any consensus over using any or all the following might clarify folks' wishes regarding their self-description:

Regards, David (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idle thought: As I look at Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, the introduction would seem to suggest that these should be included in those categories, with the format: <ethnicity/nationality>-ian Wikipedians. - jc37 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle.I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question. Erielhonan  22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island

edit
Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island - This one should also be decided with the "from" categories below. - jc37 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey

edit
Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey - This one should be decided with the "from" categories directly below. (Please respond there : ) - jc37 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Argentina

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Eritrea

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Garneau

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Kerala

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Massachusetts

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Queensland

edit

Category:Wikipedians from Setúbal

edit

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union

edit
Delete all or Rename, changing "from" to "in", per consistency. (I guess I wasn't able to avoid "from", per "born" below : ) - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting for further discussion, and to remove any concerns due to tag removal - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment - as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these. - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by location --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "born in" versions. See below.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't even think about deleting this category. I have removed the category for deletion link from the article. I am highly insulted that you would discriminate against someone who wishes to express themselves as from the european union. You do not need to be born in the european union to be part of the european union. I could not believe it when I saw the link, I thought it was vandalism. NilssonDenver 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no discrimination here. The nomination is just one of many designed to bring the category system into some sort of consistency. Please do not accuse people of biases they do not have.--Mike Selinker 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't {{prod}}. I'll be re-adding the tag, so that people can find this discussion. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From" indicates to me a place of origin but not necessarily where the person now lives, whereas "in" indicates the opposite (i.e. the place where the person now lives but did not necessarily originate). So I guess you could be a "Wikipedian from X" and a "Wikipedian in Y", i.e. both types of category viable...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, this is all of the "from location" categories. Is this a trend we want to start?Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me deleting Wikipedians from the European Union is racist and discriminatory and I will fight this on these grounds. That is how strongly I fell about it. I will remove the link again in 24 hours if no one else places a more appropriate discussion category link and will keep removing the deletion link. There must be a better way of indicating a discussion on renaming a category is proposed but deletion I will continue to object to for this category. I am european and I will not be categorised as anything else. You may not understand the depth of feeling I have on this subject and I understand you may be trying to make wikipedia more efficient and/or readable but you have touched on a nerve. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by NilssonDenver (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 November 2006
  • Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle.I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question. Erielhonan  22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing peoples right to express the nationality and/or where they live. You cannot be allowed to categorise somebody to suit your needs. I am furious with this. I am from the european union. My passport tells me I am.

If you tell the scottish wikipedians who are proud to be scottish that you want to remove their scottishness from wikipedia I know you will have a fight on your hands. I am from the european union, if I move to the USA am I now categorised as North American. Stop now what you are doing. You have chosen without discussion on the Wikipedians from european union category page to propose deletion. You are the one trying to prove a point of trying to recategorise to suit what you want. I am putting back what is supported by those people who are proud to be wikipedians from the european union.

If you take on other nationalities you will get the same anger, that someone would just change/remove or delete their expression of nationality or anything else they wish to express themselves by.

People can be living in, born in, proud to be part of a country, leave well alone. I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to prevent people who freely contribute to this site being categorised to suit an index. A user can classify themselves in many ways. You can not be permitted to prevent users to express themselves.

If more categories are needed than let them be added. Who decides if a category is suitable or not? If I am a pipe smoking, scottish nationalist, living in australia I want to be categorised that way. Until someone comes up with the perfect indexing system leave it as it is.

Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). So I am restoring the category to where it was before you interfered without any discussion. NilssonDenver 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to whom is this comment directed?The unsigned EU Scot? -  Erielhonan  00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume to me, since it's a near duplicate of something I said above. - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You started a deletion process without an idea as to how it should end. You were uncertain yet you felt the need to mark a category for deletion.
  • To me this is vandalism. If I feel some category does not feel right, can I go right along mark a page for deletion without giving a reason or suggestion. Talk first, come up with suggestions, then act would be a polite way to do things.
  • Lets take Scotland as an example. There are Category:Scottish Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Scotland categories. Category 1 does not mean you have to be living in Scotland, but you are scottish. Category 2 are wikipedians living in but not necessarily from Scotland. What will yo do with these categories?
  • I advise that you do not try and reclassify these users as they are expressing themselves in different ways. Some may even be expressing both. As  Erielhonan  wrote Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle.I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question.
  • You can tidy up indexes but you must not stop freedom of expression.
  • I would suggest that you refrain from marking a category for deletion. Renaming or moving may not bring out as strong a response as mine, but when it comes to country, nationality, location you will have a battle without support from the entire wikipedia community.
  • I was born in, I am living in, I hold a passport from. Some may aspire to be, working in, passing through, refugee from. If you want change on this area, start at the top with a working group. Don't pick on particular categories because they don't fit someones index. Change in this area would require great reorganisation. Is this a project worth pursuing. This is the question you should put out there?
  • Now we have a category being discussed for deletion and a precedent being set that will affect all categories. My suggestion is stop right now, find an area to discuss nationalities and location, and if the wikipedians want change let them decide if nationalities or locations or any description should be limited or expanded. I again suggest you stop right now as this is too sensitive an area to mess with. Come with ideas before staring a deletion process and remove the category deletion from Category:Wikipedians from the European Union NilssonDenver 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. I mean this in no way disrespectful, but I think much of your concern above is due to a misunderstanding of Categories fordiscussion. Just because someonething is labelled for deletion, doesn't mean that that is the only possible outcome. I am limited by only being able to place one tag, and to place the "renaming" tag requires a target for the rename. In this case, I had no idea, and "deletion" was also an option. therefore, the obvious solution was to tag it as a "deletion", and when someone comes here for the discussion they will be able to see the options, and perhaps even suggest some of their own. In all, please assume good faith.Believe it or not, if you'll take a moment to check out my userpage, I tend towards inclusionism (Wikipedia is not paper), and eventualism. So I always do a bit of a double-take when someone suggests that I am a deletionist : ) - I just like orderly organisation, and I believe that developing naming conventions/standards is helpful for everyone. I just don't think that having 3 or more different ways to say something about where a wikipedian is "from" is helpful. It tends to spread them across categories, rather than unify them for ease of navigation/finding. I hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 11:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Messing with nationalism is dangerous. How people express themselves whether they are proud to be living in the European Union or from the European Union you cannot take away that right. To box someone in under a category to suit an index is asking for trouble. If you delete the European Union category then how will I express my relationship with the European Union. It still annoys me that you would place this category up for discussion without proper thought as to what should happen with this category.
  • Are you supporting this category's deletion? Who decides now where this discussion ends? I support both living in the European Union and from the European Union and I will not prevent any user from declaring their beliefs as long it is non offensive and then offensiveness is another policy decision for a working group.
  • So please answer my question, when does this end? Will the right to declare yourself as Wikipedians living in the European Union and Wikipedians from the European Union be removed. If you are an inclusionist you cannot remove the right to express onesself because you want a nice tidy index.
  • Note I picked Scotland as an example as there is a proud Scottish Wikipedian who is a Wikipedian from the European union, living in England whose right to express this information will be removed. And I am telling you now, you don't want to mess with the ScottishWikipedians both from and living in categories :-)
  • So to conclude 1. No deletion; 2. Have at least 2 categories for the European Union, living in and from the; 3. Stay away from users national declarations; 4. If you feel that the current indexes are too unorganised, work through the process of getting wikipedia policy set, however that is done; 5. Decide when this discussion will run its course. NilssonDenver 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to speak to Nilsson's point about freedom of expression. While it is one of our alienable rights as citizens, it is irrelevant to this discussion. The category system, and indeed all of the userpage activities on Wikipedia, fall under the policy Wikipedia is not webspace. If a user wants to express himself fully, that's what webpages are for. Here we are trying to decide what the basis for a collaborative category system is. In this particular case, we are faced with five different and somewhat overlapping structures which may never be easy to rationalize into a smaller group. If so, that's fine; we'll end up with "in" and "from" and "born in" categories until another group (possibly the proposed workgroup) comes along to straighten it out. But let's avoid the indiscriminate labels of people being racist or discriminatory or stifling of expression. This discussion will run its course when the time runs out on the nomination in a few days, which will only get extended if someone decides to delete the tag yet again. And especially, Nilsson, regardless of how annoyed you are, you need to lay off the threats of who we "don't want to mess with," because that more than anything else will lead to your own freedom of expression being stifled with a block. I hope we're clear on this.--Mike Selinker 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Please remember that this is a discussion. It doesn't mean that any categories automatically get deleted. In fact, the nomination mentioned the possiblity of a renaming. The appearance of this group of categories was just to try to get consensus on their merits and how they can best benefit Wikipedia. No person or group was being attacked by this nomination. The existence of these categories, as well as their name, depends on what consensus determines is best for collaboration, because that is ultimately why user categories exist. —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a now more concilatory mindset and apologetic demenour and having read around about wikipedia policy here are my thoughts expressed calmly :-)
    While categories may have been designed for a particular use, rightly or wrongly, they are used as items by a user to express themselves. Their user pages are not enough. If there was an original policy on user categories it has not been enforced and to enforce it now will, as I have shown, cause friction between those who wish to apply the policy as they believe it was originally envisaged and those who see it differently.
    WP:NOT#WEBSPACE"The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration" this is wikipedia policy. It can be argued that placing a category showing your location from or in would help collaboration as you can find users local to you or users in an area you wish to examine, combined with other user categories can narrow your search.
    WP:UC Wikipedia:User categorization is not considered a guideline on Wikipedia at this stage.
    User Categories seems to be the one that evolved beyond that of what its original creators taught it might become and is now so well established as an expression of many things, to remove it will be to confuse users understanding of what it is. There appears to me to be no definitive policy on user categories and while a project has been started it still has no "official" status. If a user page is to help collaboration on wikipedia, a huge cleanup would be required as user pages I have seen have many references that I cannot see how they would help with collaboration.
    As much as Wikipedia is suppose not to be a social network it has the traits of a social network. We all collaborate on this project, we communicate, we add data and create information for articles, we discuss, we argue, we fight, we sulk, we yell and we find expression on our user page. Wikipedia is alive. Its users have given it life and it is evolving. It may be outgrowing its software limitations and cannot cope easily with many indices (indexes). To standardise wording, such as every category must start with "Wikipedians" would help efficiency, to remove categories would be to take the heart from Wikipedia, and remove the diversity that users express themselves by. I came to wikipedia to add my knowledge freely and have stayed because of the variety of users and contributions, the diversity of expressions and I have watched it grow exponentially.
    Effective collaboration are words used in Wikipedia policy, but how now do you define effective collaboration. 1,500,000 articles, I don't know how many users, but the system appears to be working. Wikipedia is alive and expressing itself in so many ways. I hope it does not become strangled by efficiency, organised it should be, restrictive it should never be. NilssonDenver 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See now, that's a fine argument. I can't say I disagree with any of that. Thanks for changing your tone rather than your tune.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    General agreement with MS directly above - And you listed some good descriptions as to why we do have location-based user categories. And, personally, I don't believe that we should delete the truely location-based categories, either. However, the system needs clean-up. (To use a metaphor, the bush needs pruning in order to foster healthy growth.) So, if we accept that location-based categories are justifiable, two things then yet need addressing in this case: Do we need a category to group such Wikipedians, rather than just a userbox or other userpage notice (I believe so, in this case); and how should such groupings (and groups of groupings) be named, in working towards a standardisation in naming. I believe that the categories should be unified as much as possible, while yet following precision, to help unify such groupings, for easier navigation/searches. (etc etc etc.) - jc37 10:04, 28 November 2006 (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:Chocoholic Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chocoholic Wikipedians - The userbox that populates this cat: "This user eats chocolate." - Guess that makes it a food cat : ) - jc37 19:37, 26 November 2006 (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:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians - someone mentioned clothing categories below : ) - jc37 19:33, 26 November 2006 (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:Reclusive Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reclusive Wikipedians - Wikipedians who hide away from the world for various reasons. - jc37 19:26, 26 November 2006 (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 respect the beliefs of others

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who respect the beliefs of others - I presume this includes everyone? : ) - jc37 19:04, 26 November 2006 (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:Politically incorrect Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Politically incorrect Wikipedians - The userbox should be enough. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (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 userboxes for religious reasons

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for religious reasons - Duplicative of Category:Wikipedians by religion. - jc37 18:34, 26 November 2006 (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:Oprahist Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oprahist Wikipedians - This is populated by this userbox. It's obviously not an actual religion. On this page (the category's only member, which is a storage gallery), it's listed under "religious humor". - jc37 18:29, 26 November 2006 (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 androgynous when online

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are androgynous when online - Essentially: "People who have a pronoun preference, or a lack thereof, when online" - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see a need for a category in this case. - jc37 18:07, 26 November 2006 (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 iPods

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who want iPods - Similar to the wanting cats or dogs below. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation - Believe it or not, this is a food category (well, drink, anyway). - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (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.

Admins

edit

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats - Duplicates Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, I don't disagree that " it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find". - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation about how to find the special page to the category (it doesn't seem to have a URL for 'crats specifically). Wow, that category needs populating. --ais523 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Nod, hence my comments above : ) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (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 administrators

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia administrators - The admins by nationality subcats can be merely recategorised as subcats of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. Delete the parent cat and all its members as a duplication of Special:Listusers and Wikipedia:List of Administrators. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep - Special:Listusers isn't well known, and categories have advantages over lists, so this is better than Wikipedia:List of Administrators. The admins by nationality subcats are fine, but I still think it's good to have all of the admins listed in a single place. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong and Very Speedy Keep - It would be shame for us non-administrators to have it deleted. Just the other day I was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. This catgory isn't just showcase for some of the best Wikipedians and a source for inspiration, it is also a extremely good platform to ask for help, often better than the Pump. Please, try and delete a hundred thousand other ridiculous, confusing or useless categories. Leave this one out. I'd rather propose to make it more comprehensive and put all admins to it. - 06:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    As stated in the nomination, the "admins by nationality/ethnicity" sub-categories would be Kept, I am merely suggesting that the umbrella category be deleted as a duplication. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Easy one-click to a useful list.Gets a newbie there fast when needed. Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, logical supercat. -- nae'blis 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct/correct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. (if anything, I think I'd argue for deletion of the list rather than the category) ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned under Bureaucrats, above: "Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below." - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Perfectly sensible category with a useful application. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.In this case, the size of the set argues fairly strongly for a category instead of (or rather, as well as) a list (or indeed, various lists, as is presently the case).Alai
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:Wannabe rouge admins

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wannabe rouge admins - These get funnier and funnier : ) - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

 . Well, the intention was to add an additional level of irony; the parent category survived the CfD so I see no particular reason to delete this as well. (Not that I'd mind too much, basically this is a question of how much messy humor we're ready to tolerate). Duja► 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I'm someone who would champion the idea that we should preserve humour on Wikipedia : ) - However, I think in this case it would be much better as a List rather than a category. Otherwise, we're opening ourselves up to having categories of humourous categories, and I don't think that that would be a good idea. - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mentioned it, it actually struck me as an excellent idea

 . Now seriously, is there a policy on user categories? We seem to be discussing on I like it/I dislike it level. Most of the ones that you're now putting under scrutiny were tolerated so far as "no big deal" or "they do no harm"; I realize that is not the approach we take in article space, but I'm fairly undecided as to what set of rules should apply to UCs as well. Duja► 12:27, 23 November 2006 (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:Rouge admins

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rouge admins - It's humour, but since there is an associated humour page: Wikipedia:Rouge admin, the category should probably go. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
The easy fix there is to just have a link to the category, described as a way to see who is in it, on that page. No need for a list. The case that a list is better than a category in this instance has not been made. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I {{sofixit}}-ed it. :) it's linked now. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a list isn't better than a category. They're both pointless in this case since the page is about humor anyway. At least with a list, everything is kept in one place, and it avoids having to go to multiple pages to catch the humor. Also, far too many humor categories get created, and it doesn't reflect well (and can even be perceived as hypocritical) to delete them while letting admin keep their humor category. Besides, I've chosen to rebel against the cabal, and I'm taking it down one rouge admin at a time! :-) —Cswrye 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT or just trying to be funny? This category is not *just* humor, which point seems to be lost on some. This is a useful category, as are many categories that identify some subset of admins. (As before, consider Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles... very useful as a category, less useful as a list and would be more work to maintain) 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) .
Please, settle down! I thought it was obvious that the last line was just humor, but I really meant the rest of it. I'm starting to understand the point you've been making below that this distinguishes admins who focus more on ignoring all rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia from those who focus more on following proper process. That does make sense to me, and I'm on the verge of changing my vote to "keep". However, I do have a question. How does the category relate to Wikipedia:Rouge admins? The point that the humor page makes is that admins follow policy and consensus even though many users complain about them suppressing The Truth™, which doesn't have anything to do with WP:IAR. By the way, this doesn't mean that I've given in to the cabal. —Cswrye 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reasoning how this category harms Wikipedia.  Grue  09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Aside from being an essential part of Wikipedia culture, there's something quite serious hidden behind this "humorous" category; it's made clear in WP:ROUGE.Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you have my curiosity peaked. I've re-read that article, and I don't see any purpose for the category, in that article, serious or otherwise. What am I missing? - jc37 15:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid category for admins with a broad interpretation of WP:IAR, if humorous. -Amarkov blahedits 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless fun. --Majorly (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duja.--Grand Slam 7 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the history of Wikipedia. Being placed in the category is part of the gag....Promotes a whistle while you work attitude. --FloNight 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, is it useful to know who considers themselves (or is considered by their peers) a Rouge admin? I feel it is. Humor stripped aside, admins in this category have stated explicitly they are willing to Ignore all rules and processes, as needed, for the good of the encyclopedia. Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important. Whether you agree with one view or the other, surely you would agree there is a distinction and it is a distinction with a difference. Knowing who is in which camp is not in and of itself divisive, so there is indeed encyclopedic value and use in knowing who is ROUGE. Second, then, given that there is value in knowing this, is it better to have a category or a list? Consider that we have Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles as a category... On the other hand we have Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks as a list. I think rather than moving categories to lists (in general not the way we do things, lists are inferior to categories) we ought to be moving current lists to categories. Third, this has been brought up before... Therefore Keep. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part has nothing to do with this discussion (though I thought it was a nice overview, and we should link to it should anyone attempt to delete the article), since in no way does this nomination suggest that the article (or any associated userboxes) be removed. I disagree with your comments about lists and categories (See WP:CLS, as I've noted at your other similar comments). Each has their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do appreciate that you did understand that this is about the grouping, which apparently has been confused by several people. Other than FLoNight's comment above, I haven't heard a single reason why the category should be kept. And her rationale is concerning because that means it's a category that you're placed in by other Wikipedians (not everyone has the same sense of humour). My thoughts on this are in total agreement with what User:Cswrye summed up above.- jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list if you want it to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. I also note that your opening argument is that because this is humor it should not be a category. That's a nonsequiteur that the first part of my response addresses, so it's not true that "The first part has nothing to do with this discussion" as you state. Note that you also state, above "I don't see any purpose" and I've refuted that as well. Are you ready to concede that either a categeory or a list is needed, and that having neither would be less optimal than where we are now? If so we can stick to why a category is better in this instance, but if not, we need to flatten the issue of why one or the other IS a good thing to have first.++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't see a need even for a list. I was merely saying I wouldn't oppose one, if wanted. There are many humour pages in project space, and this is/would be just one more. As I believe I've said repeatedly, I just don't see the need for a group for this. WHat i've yet to see in your responses is a reason to keep besides "because I want it kept" and "because categories are better than lists". If that's the sum total of your position, that's fine. Whether I agree with it or not, it's a valid enough perspective. But what I'm looking for is a tangible use. If it's only because it's admins who support WP:IAR, then the category gets deleted, because we all should follow the WP:5P. That includes interpreting WP:IAR. So far I haven't seen anything even close to usefulness as a category, except as a userpage notification. And whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant. To reiterate: Give me something of substance. Otherwise, this is no different than: "Category:Admins who support Wikipedians being WP:CIVIL". (Which would also be deleted, for the same, obvious reasons.) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you're reading what I am saying here. "Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important" is a pretty clear justification for the existance of this category. You can argue that all admins should be identical, but they are not. We have some people who are very Willy-Wonka (very process centric) and some people who are very Red Rider (very IAR centric). Unless you're prepared to demand uniformity, knowing who is who is goodness. So a list or a category is a good thing to have. Don't you agree? If not, why not? And... categories are better than lists in this particular usage as already explained. QED. (no personal preference given in this recap of my argument whatever) ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clear up a point... Any admin put in this category is going to understand the category. Admins in this category are not Wimps... They can stay in it or remove themselves as they desire. That is understood. IMO, you are looking for a solution to a problem where none exists by deleting this category. FloNight 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand your perspective on this. And it's "possible" that you're misreading my overall intention, since we are (as we often do in XfD) getting bogged down in details : ) - Read my latest response to Lar, directly above, and perhaps that will clarify. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duja - don't try defying the CABAL, or else... ;-)--Aldux 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come now, what possible aid in collaboration can we get from this? "Humor." This category simply does not pass the laugh test.--WaltCip 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry WaltCip that you do not Get It. But this category is an important aid to collaboration. I observed the recent induction of an admin into the category. I can assure you that something good happened for this person and Wikipedia that day. This type of humorous interaction between users is part of the culture of Wikipedia. We need to Make More positive interactions between users Not Delete aids to our existing ones. --FloNight 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, I don't think that the category is needed for this. The same effects could be "effected" by placing any sort of notice on the user's pages (userbox or otherwise). It would seem to me to achieve the same effect, without the need for a category.However, can you explain further? Perhaps I am missing something. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shows an admin has a sense of humor, and sense. Concur with FloNight that you're looking for a solution to a non-problem. Please go to Wikipedia:Cleanup for problems which actually require attention. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the description on the category page actually implies a negative thing, and for humour, the Wikipedia page is enough. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Humour is a relatively important part of anything, including Wikipedia. Harmless and humourous; I see no valid reason to delete other than redundancy with the WP page. (Which it isn't, really; WP:ROGUE is informative, and Catergory:Rogue is a category. The two serve similar but separate purposes; that's why the Category: namespace is seperate from the Wikipedia: one. Ourai т с 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a part of our unique culture. What is up with the fears? Good for moral lifting, etc. Reminds me of cutting up in the back of the classroom when we should have been boning up for that test… JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh! 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far this is looking to be no consensus or delete, unless you people can provide a point other than "harmless and funny".--WaltCip 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment You may also want to see WP:ILIKEIT. The arguments are either "It's funny", "It's useful", "It's harmless", and "Why don't you deal with the other trash instead of this one." Practically an example of N.G. arguments.--WaltCip 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete.Not funny, divisive (which is somewhat ironic, given the trigger-happy treatment given other such templates and categories on ROUGE/IAR pretexts) and serves no useful purpose in developing or maintaining an encyclopaedia -- quite the reverse.Arguments to keep are both extremely weak, and fundamentally inconsistent -- between broadly, those that (in my view wrongly) regard it as harmless and hilarious BOFH humour, and those that (in my view even more wrongly) regard the BOFH as a good model of sysopping.If those keenest on IAR had a modicum of introspection and consistency, they'd delete this out of hand.Alai 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Keep, Rename Category:Rogue Wikipedia admins. Blarneytherinosaur talk 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine those that crack up at the current version would argue that this would decrease the alleged hilariousness thereof, diminish the trowelling on of the irony, unacceptably reduce the mockery of the notional antagonists of the membership, etc, etc.Alai 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just my two cents. I figure if we needed to rename all the sporting cats to include "Wikipedia" or "Users", it might be worth mentioning here. Far be it from me to deminish humour! Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:24, 2 December 2006 (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 don't wish to become administrators

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators - Another "not" category. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand why someone wouldn't (it took a long time for me to agree to become one), but it's not something I'd declare.--Mike Selinker 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's their decision what they declare. Not allowing someone the option of saying no seems a little like restricting speech. Blast 11.24.06 0149 (UTC -5)
    They're still allowed the userbox, or userpage statement, We're just removing the category. (At this point, does anyone else think that we should specifically and distinctly specify this at the top of this page?) - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jc37 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discount keeps - The "NOT" system for listing categories states that there's no point in listing categories that say such things as "Wikipedians who don't have third arms", as we have discussed in the previous CfDs. Also, ad infinitum, this could include an infinite number of people in Wikipedia. The arguments provided for the keeps are unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 November 2006
  • Rename to Wikipedians who are content to remain rank-and-file editors.Takes the bitter taste of not out of it.It's a useful category. Erielhonan  22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for those interested in retaining their "user" privileges. -- nae'blis 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not categories such as "Wikipedians who do not like cheese" are stupid, as not liking cheese implies absolutely nothing in the affirmative. Not wanting to be an administrator does imply affirmative statements. -Amarkov blahedits 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful category that can help avoid wasted efforts asking people if they want to be nominated. --Majorly (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think that the userbox which populates this category is enough? - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but no reason for deletion. --Majorly (Talk) 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it can be (a reason for deletion).The Wikipedian categories are essentially about fostering collaboration. This category is about division ("I don't want"). Whether it's just a genuine lack of interest, or a sincere statement about how they feel about admins or adminship, doesn't really matter... The category in no way helps towards collaboration, promotes or at least decalares a division. Hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think others have made the case that it does help toward collaboration. Users in this category don't want to be harassed about becoming admins, they just want to edit. That does not promote division, it helps avoid giving needless offense. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a notice on a userpage does that. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful category. Rename if you like but knowing who does not want to be an admin is useful, and categories are more useful than lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and make the case that in this case a list is better, then. WP:CLS isn't policy last I checked, and maybe it needs some work to boot, in reading it over I found a fair bit to disagree with. IF that case is valid, and you let us know when you've populated such a list and publicised to the users that are in this category that there is a list and they need to maintain their membership in it, I'll change my thinking, in this case. But you haven't made the case that a list is better than a category in this case yet that I can see. By default, the category is a better choice (c.f. the MANY AfD's against lists that merely say "category exists" as their argument for deleting the list, which then carries and the list is deleted).Also, are you conceding there's a need for either a list or a category by saying a list is better? Or are you doing the defense in depth of "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" that lawyers use?++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" - I may have to quote you... That made me laugh out loud : ) - Oh and I've responded to this same line of questioning above in the other admin nominations, though I suppose I can repeat it here (again)if you would like. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Category name does not imply "bitterness" or anything of the sort.There are plenty of users who probably do not want the weight of admin responsibility, not out of bitterness, but just because that's who they are.In fact, at least at the moment, I consider myself one of those people.Even if I could become an admin, I wouldn't want to.The category is both useful and non-divisive. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a grouping of wikipedians who express that choice, useful? (They still can declare that choice through a comment on their talk page, or a userbox, etc.) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are nice and visible at the very bottom of a user page. Talk page messages and userboxes get overlooked. That's how it is useful ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above: "whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant." And for that matter, nothing from stopping you from placing such a link at the bottom of your userpage as well. If the only arguement is "because it's a userpage notice", then my comment is "Strong Delete", because categories shouldn't be used only for that purpose. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have with that argument (and, yes, you do seem to be using the lawyerly defense in depth here, when one argument is refuted, you pop up with another one) is that ANYTHING can be done a different way. that something CAN be done a different way does not mean that it SHOULD be done. Having a representation category at the very bottom of your userpage is a useful attribute that cannot be achieved any other way. You can put it CLOSE to the bottom, but not IN the category section. Is this the strongest argument in favour? no. But it's one you cannot counter by saying "you can achieve it another way". For if that were true, we could well delete every template. Everything a template achieves CAN be done another way. And that's an absurd idea, isn't it?For much ease of use results from using templates... ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lawyerly defense"? Apparently I see this discussion differently than you do. I think I've stated my reasons for the nomination rather clearly by now. What you apprently see as "lawyerly defense", I see as "responding to your comments". Or in other words, "discussing" : ) - And it isn't because it can "be done another way", it's because we shouldn't merely use categories as notices. A page link is enough. Categories are groupings, which also act as links to those groupings. As I said, if your "arguement" (your word) is that you want the category kept because you see it useful as a "page link", then my answer is "Strong and Speedy Delete". - jc37 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories: Eventualist Wikipedians | Inclusionist Wikipedians | Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion | Structurist Wikipedians | WikiProject Comics members | WikiProject Greyhawk participants | WikiProject Middle-earth participants | Wikipedians who read Tolkien | WikiProject Star Wars members | Wikipedians who participate in the Comics Collaboration of the Month | Wikipedians who participate in the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week are the categories I see at the bottom of your user page. That's a shedful. Aren't all those categories things that you could just as easily note via a comment? Could they all be lists instead? Why did you add yourself to those categories? So that people could find you easily, right? Or was it some other reason? Whatever reason you give, applies here too (and to all the other categories you've nommed), once it is shown they are useful distinctions to make. What I mean when I say Lawyerly defense is that when I show that it's a useful distinction, you argue that it doesn't need to be a category, and when I show why it needs to be a category, you argue that it isn't a useful distinction. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's take those each, step by step:
    • The "-ist" categories - Among several other things, these are part of a media wiki structure. See: m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. They also may be used as a part of scientific research. (See m:Wikiresearch.) So I think there is a good chance that they pass the bar as "useful".
    • The WikiProject participants/members are very clearly an awesome example of usefulness by collaboration. As are the "Collaboration of the Week/Month".
    • "...who read Tolkien" - The various "Wikipedian by interest" categories follow the same pattern. it's a grouping of people who are interested in a topic, therefore, one may presume that they may know "something" about that topic, and as such should be helpful in collaboration.
    • The "Wikipedians who support..." some Wikipedian cause or issue - These are useful as groupings so that those who are discussing the issue , or in the process of writing up an essay/guideline/whatever on the issue, may find others who are also interested in the issue, and just like the other "Wikipedians by interest" categories, we presume that such people should have at least some modicum of knowledge (and of course, interest) about said topic, and thus may also be interested in collaboration.
    The point to them all, is that there is a point to the grouping: useful collaboration of some type. So how does this category qualify? It's actually a category of "Wikipedians who would rather not collaborate as administrators". Which is perfectly fine, except that there is no need for the grouping. Wikipedian categories should exist to be a notice and grouping. As I mentioned above, if it's "notice only", then I suggest delete, since a "notice" is all that's needed. - jc37 15:33, 29 November 2006 (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.

November 25

edit

Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Category:Wikipedian Vast Right Wing Conspiracy members. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2006 (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 their own political ideals

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with their own political ideals - "This category is for Wikipedians who follow only their own political ideals (ones invented by themselves or someone they know that are not mainstream) - they do not abide by any certain party's beliefs." - Userbox should be enough. I don't see usefulness as a category. (Essentially a "not" category.) - jc37 11:51, 25 November 2006 (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 some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence - (Wikipedians who like "The South".) Usefulness as a category? Only member is category creator. - jc37 11:47, 25 November 2006 (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 positive edit wars

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with positive edit wars - the reverse category of the nomination directly below. Sorry to hear it, but the userbox would still be enough. It too is empty and uncategorised. - jc37 11:44, 25 November 2006 (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 negative edit wars

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with negative edit wars - While I'm happy to hear it, the userbox would be enough. The category is also empty and uncategorised. - jc37 11:42, 25 November 2006 (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 evil clones

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with evil clones - jc37 11:38, 25 November 2006 (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 varying wikilosophy

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with a varying wikilosophy - From one perspective, the category is too broad, from another, since it's a category that essentially says that its members deal with every situation on a case-by-case basis, it could potentially contain all wikipedians. (Except those who may claim to be biased?) - jc37 11:33, 25 November 2006 (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 ponytail one foot long or longer

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with a ponytail one foot long or longer - : ) - jc37 11:28, 25 November 2006 (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 Massachusetts accent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians with a Massachusetts accent to Wikipedians in Massachusetts - jc37 11:18, 25 November 2006 (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 whose hobby is Wikipedia

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians whose hobby is Wikipedia - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see the usefulness of a category in this case. - jc37 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who watch WindTunnel

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch WindTunnel to Category:Wikipedians who like WindTunnel with Dave Despain - per WindTunnel with Dave Despain and consistency. Though it only contains userbox-related pages and the creator's page. - jc37 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who watch Dumb and Dumber

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Dumb & Dumber.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who watch Dumb and Dumber to Category:Wikipedians who like Dumb & Dumber - per consistency. - jc37 10:55, 25 November 2006 (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 split infinitives

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use split infinitives - While informative, I think the userbox is enough. - jc37 10:48, 25 November 2006 (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 whose names anagram to other Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians whose names anagram to other Wikipedians - Among other things, this would be better as a List... (pairs of words are better listed than categorised). - jc37 10:45, 25 November 2006 (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 caffeine

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who use caffeine - Not exactly a food category... - jc37 10:41, 25 November 2006 (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 think outfits need cat hair

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who love cats.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who think outfits need cat hair to Category:Wikipedians who love cats - jc37 10:37, 25 November 2006 (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 think Wikipedia is "Teh Win"

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is "Teh Win" - Well, besides other issues, according to this web site, the definition of "win" is ambiguous. - jc37 10:33, 25 November 2006 (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 practical jokes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes - If it was telling jokes, I could see the collaboration purpose... - jc37 10:10, 25 November 2006 (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 own The Black Parade album

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to My Chemical Romance.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who own The Black Parade album to Category:Wikipedians who listen to My Chemical Romance - jc37 10:07, 25 November 2006 (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 New York Jets

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty)--Mike Selinker 12:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who like the New York Jets to Category:Wikipedian New York Jets fans - per consistency. - jc37 10:00, 25 November 2006 (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 crank calls

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like crank calls - Can't imagine usefulness. - jc37 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Again, it's a hobby, though I can't imagine how one could write much about it.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't either... - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been at least one TV series and one series of comedy albums dedicated to the topic, see Crank Yankers and the Jerky Boys.Lots of radio announcers on 'hip' stations will use prank calls in their broadcasts.It's practically a comedy genre.  Erielhonan  21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think we could call it a "genre" of comedy.Though it's been used recently as a "type" of comedic performance. But if we start categorising by types of comedic performance, how about performing in blackface? impressionists? ventriloquists? magicians? The latter four (due to their long history), at least have been around long enough to be considered. And "phone calls" have been done in comedy for years. (I think George Jessel had a call to his mother as a part of his act.) Is this really a trend we should start? How about drama types? (and let's not get into dramadies : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although it is a real "hobby", I don't think it will do much in terms of collaboration. There are also too few article that could make use of the category (things like Crank Yankers and the Jerky Boys could have their own categories like many other interests). —Cswrye 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete."Liking" something isn't a hobby descriptor, and nor would a more "active" interest be a remotely useful category.(Can't we make singleton user cats speediable?)Alai 19:15, 1 December 2006 (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 Three Stooges

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like The Three Stooges to Category:Wikipedian Three Stooges fans - per consistency. - jc37 09:47, 25 November 2006 (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 hope to own dogs

edit

Category:Wikipedians who hope to own cats

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who hope to own dogs
Category:Wikipedians who hope to own cats
Similar to the "hope to be pilots" category below. I don't see how this category would be useful for collaboration. - jc37 09:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who hate the New York Yankees

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who hate the New York Yankees - Another "not" category. - jc37 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Eurobeat

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Eurobeat music.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Eurobeat to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Eurobeat music - per consistency. - jc37 09:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delaying till article rename is tested as "Alternate history fiction," if that is accepted then will rename to category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction..--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history to Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history (fiction) - per consistency and Alternate history (fiction). - jc37 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as nominator. - jc37 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename though I think you can ditch the parenthetical.--Mike Selinker 10:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently it's needed for disambiguation according to alternative history. - jc37 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, okay. But at least ditch the parentheses. Let's not be too enamored of page titles.--Mike Selinker 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Don't Rename - as creator of the category.Alt-history is how the genre is referred to conversationally, and user categories are more for community-building than for any sort of officialdom (my understanding).Granted it's an abbreviation and sort of jargony, but it makes it identifiable to users.If rename happens, I support Mike Selinker's proposal to elide the parentheses (thereby making the category title Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction), for the reason stated in MS's comments as well as because the category name would then match the text in the category description and in the linked userbox. Also, if rename happens, please create a temp redirect till I get a chance to modify the linked userbox (within no more than 48 hrs), and please post a msg on my talk page letting me know that it was indeed renamed.Thanks,  Erielhonan  17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (about: Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction) - I would prefer that we follow the article name, whenever we can. (And (fiction) would seem to be the correct disambiguation.) - jc37
    The disambiguation is only semi-necessary in the first place.The terms are different, though similar (alternative history = research paradigm, alternate history = literary genre).Also, the w/o parentheses version of the title redirects to the parenthesize-entitled article.The parentheses imply a relationship that doesn't directly exist with the research topic (though the research certainly can inform the fiction).Alt-history is a subgenre of speculative fiction, and more closely akin to sci-fi than it is to any academic research. IMHO, alt-history is sufficient, but I stand by my previous comment regarding action.  Erielhonan  21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy electronic music

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to electronic music.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who enjoy electronic music to Category:Wikipedians who listen to electronic music - jc37 08:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy sci-fi

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who read sci-fi.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy sci-fi to Category:Wikipedians who read sci-fi - per consistency. - jc37 08:50, 25 November 2006 (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 enjoy smooth jazz music

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to smooth jazz music.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who enjoy smooth jazz music to Category:Wikipedians who listen to smooth jazz music - per consistency. - jc37 08:43, 25 November 2006 (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 under influence

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians under influence to Category:Wikipedians who edit under the influence - Since it includes alcohol as well as various drugs, I think it's too broad to be useful. It's also of questionable usefulness. - jc37 08:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that have been arrested before

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians that have been arrested before to Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested - jc37 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that edit the Uruguayan Portal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: } relisting with other portal categories}}
Rename Category:Wikipedians that edit the Uruguayan Portal to Category:Wikipedians who use the Uruguayan portal - jc37 08:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South to Category:Wikipedians in West Virginia - per consistency. - jc37 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that are Maple-Leafs fans

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy merge to extant category.--Mike Selinker 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians that are Maple-Leafs fans to Category:Wikipedian Toronto Maple Leafs fans - per consistency. - jc37 08:05, 25 November 2006 (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 seeking adoption in Adopt-a-user

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians seeking adoption in Adopt-a-user - Completing an apparent attempt by User:Flameviper. It's empty, and apparently has been replaced by other categories for the program. - jc37 07:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of another species

edit

Category:Furry Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete "another species", keep "Furry".--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of another species
Category:Furry Wikipedians
My first inclination is to Delete, however, such Wikipedians would likely know about Anime & manga; Animal-based RPGs; and Computer and video games. In any case, the first category needs a better name. Also, It is populated by 3 divergent though similar userboxes (See: Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Wikipedians of another species).If kept, it should be split, renamed, and used as a parent category for all 4. Any ideas for the new name(s)? - jc37 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Waiting for discussion. - jc37 07:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Furry Wikipedians at least, as it is a defined subgroup - those Wikipedians who are members of the furry fandom, and who are likely to edit articles in Category:Furry. Not so sure about the other one - I agree that it is a little vague. Note that being a member of the furry fandom does not imply that you believe yourself to be a member of another species, so the Furry Wikipedians category should probably not be a subcategory of Wikipedians of another species. GreenReaper 08:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "another species," but Keep "Furry." Furry is a recognized collaborative community with its own wiki based on our own.--Mike Selinker 10:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other species, as it seems to be a joke. Rename furry category to "Wikipedians interested in furry fandom". --Gray Porpoise 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GENERAL Comment on many of these proposals - please keep in mind that affinity != interest != identity.I am interested in the furry thing as a cultural topic, but do not share the affinity or identity.I have an affinity toward the Southern U.S., but do not share the identity.I may speak with a Massachusetts accent (I actually don't, but if I did...), I don't necessarily live in Massachusetts or have much interest in why it sounds like it does. Just saying, you can't reasonably merge categories like this.  Erielhonan  21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other species cat, rename furry cat to "Wikipedians interested in furry topics". "Wikipedians interested in furry fandom wouldn't be as good; it sounds too much like they're interested in the fandom as a hobby. "Wikipedians interested in furry topics" would include people such as myself that are interested in articles pertaining to the fandom but aren't at all interested in the fandom personally. Voretustalk 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "another species"; keep "furry". Then again, we have equally ridiculous categories such as Category:Martian Wikipedians, so maybe I should change that to weak delete "another species". (Full disclosure: I use userboxes that put me in both categories (i.e., "furry" and "other species"), but I only use the "other species" for the userbox; I could care less about the fate of that category.) ---Bersl2 11:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "other species", per the varied reasons above (including my own : ) - We should probably rename "furry" at some point, but, there doesn't seem to be consensus on a name yet. (I was laughing to myself about: Category:Wikipedians interested in all things furry : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Furry Wikipedians, but delete Category:Wikipedians of another species as per Mike. Blast 11.30.06 1558 (UTC -5)  
  • Rename and Move WereWolf 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete "other species" as empty-but-doesn't-realize-it-yet;weak keep of "furries".Alai 19:24, 1 December 2006 (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 Tang-e Bolaghi

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in Tang-e Bolaghi to Category:Wikipedians interested in saving Tang-e Bolaghi - populated by Template:User Tang-e Bolaghi, and only one member (the category/userbox creator). I think the userbox should be enough in this case. - jc37 07:08, 25 November 2006 (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 wish new computers came with floppy drives

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Users who wish new computers came with floppy drives to Category:Wikipedians who use personal computers - jc37 06:33, 25 November 2006 (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 trying to be not currently active

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are trying to be not currently active to Wikipedians taking a Wikibreak - Category populated by Template:Attempting wikibreak. (Name taken from text in template.) - jc37 06:19, 25 November 2006 (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:Participants in WikiProject National Football League

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[moved to speedy - jc37 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Rename Category:Participants in WikiProject National Football League to Category:WikiProject National Football League participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who are currently online

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are currently online to Category:Wikipedians who are currently online (Users to Wikipedians) - jc37 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees Fans

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees Fans to Category:Wikipedian New York Yankees fans (f) - jc37 09:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that are VandalProof moderators

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that are VandalProof moderators to Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators (s that are) - jc37 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa to Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa (that to who) - jc37 08:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who play Perplex City

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Users who play Perplex City to Category:Wikipedians who play Perplex City (Users to Wikipedians) - jc37 06:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 24

edit

Category:Wikipedians who love Sealab 2021

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Sealab 2021.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who love Sealab 2021 to Category:Category:Wikipedians who like Sealab 2021. That's a TV show, so it needs "like."--Mike Selinker 03:16, 25 November 2006 (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 is a fan of John Cena

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who is a fan of John Cena to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - another one. - jc37 13:04, 24 November 2006 (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 eats protien diet

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename Category:Wikipedians who eats protien diet to Category:Wikipedians on a protein diet - empty, except for the associated userbox. - jc37 12:59, 24 November 2006 (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 eat at Quiznos Sub

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who eat at Quiznos Sub - empty, among other things. - jc37 12:55, 24 November 2006 (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 drinks Coca-Cola

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who drinks Coca-Cola - "food" category, and possibly a recreation. - jc37 12:53, 24 November 2006 (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 members of the SOS Brigade - Wikipedia Branch

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are members of the SOS Brigade - Wikipedia Branch to Category:Wikipedians who like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya - per consistency. - jc37 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Red Sox

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Red Sox to Category:Wikipedian Boston Red Sox fans - per consistency. - jc37 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the movie Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Doppelgänger (1969 film).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the movie Doppelgänger (1969 film) (aka: “Journey to the Far Side of the Sun”) to Category:Wikipedians who like Doppelgänger (1969 film) - Should be obvious : ) - jc37 12:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Transformers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like the Transformers.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Transformers to Category:Wikipedians who like Transformers or Category:Wikipedians who like the Transformers - Similar to the Power Rangers comment below. - jc37 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jean-Luc Godard

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Jean-Luc Godard films.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jean-Luc Godard to Category:Wikipedians who like Jean-Luc Godard films - per consistency. - jc37 12:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Game Triple H

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Game Triple H to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - Another one. - jc37 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Cryme Time

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Cryme Time to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - See similar nomination below. - jc37 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of CNBC

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of CNBC to Category:Wikipedians who like CNBC - jc37 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey

edit

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Colossus: The Forbin Project

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename both.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (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 a fan of the Power Rangers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per creator's request.--Mike Selinker 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are a fan of the Power Rangers to Category:Wikipedians who like Power Rangers or Category:Wikipedians who like the Power Rangers - Since it's not just about a single show, but rather any show that features the Power Rangers as characters, I thought I would offer both options. - jc37 11:31, 24 November 2006 (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 Caians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gonville and Caius, University of Cambridge.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who are Caians to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gonville and Caius, University of Cambridge - jc37 11:24, 24 November 2006 (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've eaten silica gel

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who've eaten silica gel - Dunno if I'd call it a "food" category...: ) - jc37 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that have been powered up by Maxy the Cloud

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians that have been powered up by Maxy the Cloud - It's cute, but it's merely a category of those who use User:Masky's userbox. - jc37 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa - Another "not" category. - jc37 11:08, 24 November 2006 (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 somewhere unspecified in the United States

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians in the United States.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States to Category:Wikipedians in the United States. - jc37 11:05, 24 November 2006 (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 somewhere undetermined in Canada

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians in Canada.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada to Category:Wikipedians in Canada. - jc37 11:00, 24 November 2006 (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:Fans of Chobits

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Chobits.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Fans of Chobits to Category:Wikipedians who like Chobits per consistency in Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, and per Chobits. - jc37 10:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of Totoro

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who like My Neighbor Totoro.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians of Totoro to Category:Wikipedians who like My Neighbor Totoro per consistency in Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, and per My Neighbor Totoro. - jc37 10:54, 24 November 2006 (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 descend from Confederate soldiers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedian descendants of Confederate soldiers.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who descend from Confederate soldiers - This is similar to the nomination directly below, except the descent isn't by regional nationality. - jc37 10:46, 24 November 2006 (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 (X) Ancestry

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to "of (X) ancestry".--Mike Selinker 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to whatever consensus decides the standard should be. - jc37 10:43, 24 November 2006 (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 waiting for Godot

edit

Category:Wikipedians no longer waiting for Godot

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Wikipedians who read Samuel Beckett.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who read Samuel Beckett. - The author of the the book in question. - jc37 10:37, 24 November 2006 (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 dozenal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who like duodecimal.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians who like dozenal to Category:Wikipedians who like duodecimal - per the name of the associated article duodecimal. (The category even links to it.) - jc37 09:38, 24 November 2006 (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 confused by politics

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians confused by politics - At times, aren't we all? : ) - jc37 09:33, 24 November 2006 (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 riders

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedian equestrians.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedian riders to Wikipedian horseback riders or Wikipedian equstrians - per Horseback riding (the former name of the article), and Equestrian (the current name of the article). I have no preference which, but since one fully changes the name, while the other merely dabs it, I thought I would offer both choices. - jc37 09:11, 24 November 2006 (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 llama racers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian llama racers - Doesn't even seem to have an associated article. - jc37 09:03, 24 November 2006 (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 hoping to be pilots

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Category:Wikipedians hoping to be pilots to Category:Wikipedian student pilots - However, considering the associated userbox, I don't think the merge is appropriate. - jc37 08:54, 24 November 2006 (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 barefooters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian barefooters - Me too (wriggles my toes), but even if I type with my feet, I don't see how this is useful : ) - jc37 08:48, 24 November 2006 (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 Waterbenders

edit

Category:Wikipedian Firebenders

edit

Category:Wikipedian Earthbenders

edit

Category:Wikipedian Airbenders

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to Category:Wikipedians who like Avatar: The Last Airbender.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Wikipedian Avatar: The Last Airbender fans. (Unless we have cartoon characters among us : ) - jc37 08:32, 24 November 2006 (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's who's favorite tag team in professional wrestling is DX currently working for WWE RAW brand

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedian's who's favorite tag team in professional wrestling is DX currently working for WWE RAW brand to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE. Should be self-explanatory : ) - jc37 08:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in the Knights of the Order of the Tin Foil Sword of Great Justice

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in the Knights of the Order of the Tin Foil Sword of Great Justice - Before commenting, take a look at the template which populates this category: Template:Foilsword. The humour is unmistakable, but its civility could possibly be considered questionable. In any case, I don't believe the category is should be kept. - jc37 07:23, 24 November 2006 (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 Esperanto organizations

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn, speedy keep. --ais523 09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Category:Wikipedians in Esperanto organizations to Category:Wikipedians in Esperanza - single member, and would seem to be a duplication. - jc37 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Friendly Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: already closed as deleted from Nov 11 nomination.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Friendly Wikipedians - Another of the "nice" categories : ) - jc37 06:35, 24 November 2006 (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 celebrate Mother's Day

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who celebrate Mother's Day - Same reasons as St. George's Day, below. - jc37 06:07, 24 November 2006 (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 celebrate St. George's Day

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who celebrate St. George's Day - There are only two of these "celebrates a holidy" categories (The other is mother's day). Imagine: Wikipedians by holiday celebrations. Consider all the religious and secular holidays, and think about whether we want something like that. - jc37 06:06, 24 November 2006 (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 smoke pipe

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipe to Category:Wikipedians who smoke pipes (s) - jc37 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust trust Jimbo

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust trust Jimbo to Category:Wikipedians who neither trust nor distrust Jimbo (extra trust : ) - jc37 13:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffarge in Hong Kong

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffarge in Hong Kong to Category:Wikipedians for Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong (obvious typo) - jc37 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians for Local History

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians for Local History to Category:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history (caps and adding "WikiProject" clarifier) - jc37 09:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: university of newcastle, australia

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: university of newcastle, australia to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Newcastle, Australia (Caps) - jc37 09:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with IQ above 150

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Mike Selinker 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians with an IQ above 150, or Delete. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 23

edit

Category:Crazy Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crazy Wikipedians - Poor duplication of Category:Wikipedians by mental condition - jc37 16:27, 23 November 2006 (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 symbols

edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both (consensus on Swastika, creator decision on symbols).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or UpMerge Category:Wikipedians interested in Swastika to Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols. If Delete, then Delete Category:Wikipedians interested in symbols, as well. (Both are tagged.) Only a single member (who created the userbox which populates the category). - jc37 16:04, 23 November 2006 (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 Atheism

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Atheist Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians interested in Atheism to Category:Atheist Wikipedians. per consistency. - jc37 15:38, 23 November 2006 (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:Hellbound Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hellbound Wikipedians - Possibly, but that doesn't mean that they need to be categorised by it. : ) - jc37 13:13, 23 November 2006 (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 pen spinners

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian pen spinners - I have to admit, this one made me smile. - jc37 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who drive rusty pieces of junk

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who drive rusty pieces of junk - Again, Just read its name and introduction. : ) - jc37 13:06, 23 November 2006 (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 crashed a hot car

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who crashed a hot car - Just read its name and introduction. : ) - jc37 13:04, 23 November 2006 (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 transportation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians by transportation to Category:Wikipedians by interest or Category:Wikipedians by skill, as appropriate. The subcats are already members of one or the other. - jc37 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [modified to add the second category per MS's comment below. - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (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 of MOTD

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

The result of the debate was delete (accelerated due to Nov 13 nomination passing). --Mike Selinker 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users of MOTD - Per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 12#MOTD categories. Relisting since it's a recreation of Category:MOTDuser. However, I've also discussed this with the category creator (User talk:Geo.plrd#MOTD). - jc37 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity to Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality per its page and talk page. - jc37 12:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians that have never been arrested

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians that have never been arrested - Another "not" category. - jc37 11:48, 23 November 2006 (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:Dumb Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dumb Wikipedians - At first I was hoping this would be about Wikipedians who couldn't speak. Nope, it's populated by: User:UBX/ignorant (WP:CIVIL). But it gets better, the userbox says it's for Wikipedians who don't know how to use Userboxes. Which also makes it a "not" category. - jc37 11:37, 23 November 2006 (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:Homesick Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Homesick Wikipedians - Wikipedia, our home away from home... but knowing this is useful, why? - jc37 11:33, 23 November 2006 (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:Sane Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sane Wikipedians WP:AGF, etc. - jc37 11:31, 23 November 2006 (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:Deceased Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deceased Wikipedians - See Category talk:Deceased Wikipedians. - jc37 11:29, 23 November 2006 (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:Pissed-off Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pissed-off Wikipedians - Useful? - jc37 11:25, 23 November 2006 (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 do not know their astrological sign

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who do not know their astrological sign - This would appear to be a "not" category. - jc37 11:22, 23 November 2006 (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 lie about their age

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who lie about their age - And this is useful because? : ) - jc37 11:20, 23 November 2006 (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 administrators suffering from Adminitis

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia administrators suffering from Adminitis - Users are added to this by a rather large page header: {{Adminitis}} - I don't think the category is necessary. - jc37 11:09, 23 November 2006 (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 wear class rings

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who wear class rings - We already have Category:Wikipedians by education and its various subcats. - jc37 11:02, 23 November 2006 (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 vigils

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian vigils - Ignoring usefulness, 3 out of 4 have apparently returned : ) - jc37 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians of Earth

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians of Earth - Another location of us all : ) - jc37 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK i just found Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship so now i say Merge-->Phoenix741 03:13, 2 December 2006 (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 subculture

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedians by subculture to Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle. Look at the two categories to see why. - jc37 10:38, 23 November 2006 (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 regret their mistakes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who regret their mistakes - I'm sure we all do, but do we need a category for it? : ) - jc37 10:32, 23 November 2006 (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:Sarcastic Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sarcastic Wikipedians - (Not even gonna make the obvious puns... Oh what the heck) What? Like we needed a category to let others know? What were you thinkin'? : )- jc37 08:37, 23 November 2006 (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:Parent Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted--Mike Selinker 16:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parent Wikipedians - Empty category, which was populated by a userbox that's since been deleted. - jc37 08:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who procrastinate

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who procrastinate - While possibly useful as a userbox, no need for the category. - jc37 08:31, 23 November 2006 (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:Garlic-eating Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Garlic-eating Wikipedians - Another food category. (Someone like to find the link to the others?) - jc37 08:29, 23 November 2006 (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:Evil Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Evil Wikipedians - Another cute, but no, category. - jc37 08:27, 23 November 2006 (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:Happy Birthday!

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn.---Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happy Birthday! - Like the other "nice" categories, this is "nice", but not needed as a category. - jc37 08:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian images

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Wikipedian images to Category:Wikipedians with pictures. At the very least the category should be moved to Category:Wikipedians by user page. - jc37 08:21, 23 November 2006 (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 writing systems

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

The result of the debate was delete (duplicate on Nov 13 nomination).--Mike Selinker 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User writing systems - Already has been tagged for cfr, seems to have slipped through the cracks? - jc37 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Eastern Hemisphere

edit

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Northern Hemisphere

edit

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Southern Hemisphere

edit

Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Western Hemisphere

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Eastern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Northern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Southern Hemisphere
Category:Wikipedians who have never left the Western Hemisphere
These are all duplicated by Wikipedians in <continent> the distinction for never having left a region doesn't seem useful. - jc37 08:11, 23 November 2006 (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:Space Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Space Wikipedians - Besides, taking up "space"... : ) - jc37 08:06, 23 November 2006 (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 citizens of Lovely

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian citizens of Lovely - An internet comic's "joke". - jc37 08:04, 23 November 2006 (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 Lunar Citizenship

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with Lunar Citizenship - Cute, but no. : ) - jc37 08:02, 23 November 2006 (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 Galactic Citizenship

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with Galactic Citizenship - That includes all of us, I presume? : ) - jc37 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians on Editor review

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians on Editor review - This category duplicates the WP:ER main page. Apparently it was possibly useful at one time, but the page it linked to has since been deleted. - jc37 07:44, 23 November 2006 (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 Ducky-approved

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-approved - See User:Keithgreer/mrducky. I am not certain, but this looks like a WP:SPAM violation. But even if not, it shouldn't be a category. - jc37 07:39, 23 November 2006 (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:Uncategorized Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Uncategorized Wikipedians - According to the category introduction: "This category is for Wikipedians who are not categorized in any way. See also Russell's paradox." - Cute, but shouldn't be a category : ) - jc37 07:35, 23 November 2006 (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 addicted to Wikipedia

edit

Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete "addicted", not ruling on "wikipediholic" because some votes did not address that category.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both or Merge Category:Wikipedians addicted to Wikipedia to Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians. - Is this useful in any way? - jc37 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [added merge option, per Mike Selinker's suggestion. - jc37 21:11, 25 November 2006 (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:Stub Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stub Wikipedians - According to the category page: "List of wikipedians which do not contain enough information on their user page to describe themselves." - According to who? And do we need a category for this? : ) - jc37 07:28, 23 November 2006 (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:Elitist Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Elitist Wikipedians - According to the category page: "These Wikipedians are Better" - Better than who? People who add punctuation? : ) - jc37 07:25, 23 November 2006 (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 usernames with lowercase initial letters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with usernames with lowercase initial letters - Similar to the previous. In addition, I don't think we need to categorise by Wikipedian username capitalisation preference - jc37 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're saying that you feel someone is more likely to notice a category at the bottom of your userpage, than a statement at the top of your userpage? - jc37 10:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If this is kept, does that mean I have to use it? I try to keep cats off my userpage. (I'm not sure whether the 'inaccuracy' involved here is fake or real; would linking to User:Tjstrf or User:Ais523 be 'inaccurate'; after all, that's the name used in page histories! --ais523 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'd have to agree with that. The reason for Template:Lowercase, is to explain that "out there" the real name of such-n-such is "x", while on Wikipedia, while a person may prefer that their initial letter is lower case, doesn't mean that it is. Since on Wikipedia, it's not. So "technically", this category name is false, such usernames don't have lowercase initial letters, but rather the user with those usernames wish that their chosen username had a lowercase first letter. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I really doubt that this category will help many people figure out that a users want their names lowercased, and certainly not as well as a userbox or simple note at the top of the page. However, there is some precedent for it in the existence of a similar category for articles, and I'm okay if it exists to maintain that consistency. —Cswrye 18:42, 30 November 2006 (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 underscores in their usernames

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians with underscores in their usernames - This would seem to be similar to the alphabet ones recently deleted. - jc37 07:16, 23 November 2006 (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

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (general agreement as to removal of members, but no clear direction as to how).--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians
  • How is this any different than any other CFD? A category is deleted, and the users are removed. In this case, we can place a further note/banner at the top of the page requesting that no one add themselves to the umbrella cat. However, when I checked a few, I've found several userboxes so far which categorize to it. There are also Wikipedians who somehow think that if you use a pipe "|" you can subcategorize yourself that way (Example: [[Category:Wikipedians|by education|student]]It's a mess, and an initial one-time bot clean-up would be more than helpful. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a subtle difference, but it's still one that might bother people. On a CFD, we're voting on what to do to a category, not to user pages. We only make changes to user pages because the categories no longer exist or have changed names, which is generally seen as a good faith edit. Removing someone from a category that does exist may not be taken well by some people, especially those who want to just be categorized as "Wikipedians" for whatever reason. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I think it is, but I know that I wouldn't want people to take me out of categories that I wanted to put myself in. Editing userboxes is kind of gray area because people who add userboxes to their user pages may not necessarily care about the categories that are attatched to userboxes. Also, you're not editing the user page itself. I would actually be okay with making changes to the userboxes that put users into this category. -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to calling it "Wikipedian categories", since that's pretty much what they are. But I suggest that such a "rename" be discussed after this nomination is done. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest not, since as Cswrye says, the current "non-deletion nomination" isn't really properly the function of this page (really you should just start a discussion at the talk page, or if you're looking for help with the heavy lifting, a bot task request).Rename to something more clearly indicating the desired scope.Alai 00:50, 2 December 2006 (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:Mediation Cabal Mediator to Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matching other subcategories of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 05:20, 23 November 2006 (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.

November 22

edit

Category:Wikipedians interested in comic books

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians who read comic books.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from CfD. The nomination is copied below. --ais523 11:07, 22 November 2006 (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.

November 21

edit

Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter A over all the other letters

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. I sent a note to the creator asking him or her to stop. --Mike Selinker 19:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See nom below, we need these like we need alien invasion. Speedy delete all. ><RichardΩ612 UW 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Also:[reply]

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

November 20

edit

Category:Wikipedians not wanting Francis to be desysoped

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

The result of the debate was delete. --HappyCamper 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 20 where I mistakingly listed it

Not gonna say too much as rationale for deletion should be self evident other than we cant all go just creating random categories for anything we want (otherwise could someone create Category:Wikipedians wanting Glen to have a new Porsche for me?? ;) Aka; Delete.  Glen  01:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 18

edit

Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter Z over all other letters

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

The result of the debate was speedily ZOOMed before the other 23 are created. --Mike Selinker 06:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter O over all the other letters I am also nominating these two categories for the same reason. ><RichardΩ612 UW 15:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Category:Wikipedia users with a preference to the letter M over all the other letters
I cannot believe that this was even created. Can we delete this as speedily as possible, how is this useful? ><Richard0612 UW 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 15

edit

Category:Vandalized Users Pages

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

The result of the debate was deleted and salted by Kbdank71. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an incarnation of protected, deleted Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized.--RobertG ♬ talk 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At one time, there was a discussion about creating a bot that would remove articles from protected categories. I don't know if that ever happened though. —Cswrye 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 14

edit

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JamieAdams

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY. — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted, but I don't think WP:DENY is a justifiable argument because it's a guideline. Anthony Rupert 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as a user has an opinion, and has any written form of information to back it up, it's justifiable. Plus, the category wasn't created in good faith so that's more reason to delete it. Try to avoid WikiLawyering in obvious deletion categories such as these.--WaltCip 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to say it's not a guideline. By the way, what's WikiLawyering? Anthony Rupert 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I did not violate 3RR! I reverted exactly 3 times at the beginning of every 24 hour period!" -Amarkov blahedits 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 13

edit

Category:User Oxford Spelling to Category:User en-oed

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:User en-oed. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fit with standard language subcategories. OED seems to be the standard abbreviation, per Oxford spelling. -Amarkov blahedits 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User piano-0 to category:User piano-1

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

The result of the debate was merge to category:User piano-1. --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving up on converting the babel categories for instruments (see Nov 7), but regardless I don't think we need 0-level categories for instruments.--Mike Selinker 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP members

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

The result of the debate was hippocratic rename (leave group 1 alone, move "members" in group 2, lowercase "Members" in group 3). --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This seems to settle the participants vs. members debate. This page seems to now accept both members and participants after "WikiProject (X)", and doesn't want Wikipedians in place of or in addition to either.--Mike Selinker 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories which only would change members to participants
  • Categories which could switch the group to the end

These are the last WikiProject categories. I'd like people to pick between two options: (1) rename all to "participants", or (2) just make sure they all end in lowercase "members". I hope everyone will agree on one naming scheme, but if we have to have two, let's get them consistent.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support usage of participants. One "participates" in a project. One is a "member" of an organisation. - jc37 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Participants in WikiProject <x>" per what I said below. If no consensus is reached, please speedy rename all the capitalised Ms to lower case. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per jc37. Oppose "Participants in WikiProject <x>". Consistency is key here.--WaltCip 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE we went throught this in July courtesy of Lady Alena and consensus was to leave them as is. It does not matter one bit if they're participants or members and we shouldn't have this coming up a mere 4 months later. Projects should be free to name their own categories.Rlevse 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment for the prior discussion on the same topic, same cats, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_20#WikiProject_participants Rlevse 00:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fixing stray caps, oppose forced changes from "members" to "participants".Each project should be free to use whichever term its members/participants/constituent particles/etc. prefer. Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I suggest we comment on each talk page for these projects and see if they want to opt in or opt out, but (as I said above), don't make it sound like a dispute or something like that. Using participants is more welcoming and encourages not viewing WikiProjects as "clubs" (it's minor, I know, but it can leave a strong mental image). Plus,the consistency is an added bonus. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a very good point. You remind me of how I felt when I first came to wikipedia and saw all the projects, campaigns, and so on. I thought that you had to "apply" to become a "member", similar to RfA (compare to online sites, such as yahoo groups, in which some are open memberships, and some are by approval only). It took some extensive reading (and lack of finding such a thing), as well as some rather inviting WIkiProjects before I realised that that wasn't true. - jc37 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose conversion to participants, Support changing all cats to use lowercase members: It is a unnecessary hassle to change all the templates to reflect this. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nominated - I'm really not that concerned about exactly how we name these categories, but I do think that it would make them easier to find and use if there was a consistent naming convention. Sure, I know that we could change our minds later on, but I doubt that would happen if they are all named consistently. In fact, the best way to keep this discussion from coming up again is to rename them (the inconsistency is what is making them stand out, not the exact name used). Personally, I do like "participants" better than "members" for the reasons that Ned Scott mentioned above, but I would be willing to go with either one to reach consensus. —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with a slight bias to rename. Except for "Categories which could switch the group to the end" where I think Rename. Doesn't that group really belong in the next section currently named "Participants in WPs"? See my more extended explanation in my comment in the next section. --David Göthberg 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are all wrong, policy and practise says "Wikipedians" instead of "members/participants". Se my comment in the next section. --David Göthberg 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. We already went through this before.Changing to this serves no purpose and is frankly anal-retentive.The potential disruption and change work isn't worth it at any rate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming them all to "participants", support making them all have members in lowercase.--Jersey Devil 11:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming: it's up to the WikiProjects how they name there sections. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose - leave the choice to the creators of those categories.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Participants in WPs

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

The result of the debate was rename to "WikiProject (X) participants" (roughly 7-4 vote). --Mike Selinker 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple change here.--Mike Selinker 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for you category cabalists. Look in the mirror. You're right, you guys are being ridiculous. Not to mention you guys will want to change it to something else 4 months ago and all the projects will have to change templates, etc AGAIN. Rlevse 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus, here we come... @_@--WaltCip 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily here. We're 5-2 now in favor of renaming this set, but we'll see where we end up.--Mike Selinker 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Rlevse, no personal attacks, please.--WaltCip 01:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk to Ned first. Rlevse 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who. ;-)
(In all seriousness, I don't really see why this set of renamings—unlike the one above—is generating such a fuss; they seem like fairly uncontroversial housekeeping even to someone as WikiProject-centric as myself.) Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. I hate those circular meta-discussions on trivial things; the last CFD ended as "no consensus" (due to "member"/"participant" dispute) and now we have the argument that, since it failed to reach consensus, all subsequent proposal must be dropped as well. (See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) ) Duja► 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (about the discussion above): Consensus can change. - jc37 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nominated - I'm really not that concerned about exactly how we name these categories, but I do think that it would make them easier to find and use if there was a consistent naming convention. Sure, I know that we could change our minds later on, but I doubt that would happen if they are all named consistently. In fact, the best way to keep this discussion from coming up again is to rename them (the inconsistency is what is making them stand out, not the exact name used). Personally, I do like "X participants" better than "participants in X", and I don't like the idea of categories being at the mercy of userboxes (it should be the other way around). —Cswrye 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename sort of. I do prefer the naming "WikiProject Projectname participants/members" since I think that is the logic order of the words. Since "WikiProject" is kind of the name space and the participants list is a subpage of the project. And I do like lowercase (probably since I am Swedish, we use lowercase for almost everything). However, to me as a Swede "members" sounds better, is shorter, easier to pronounce and much easier to spell. But I agree that the meaning of "participating" is better since it to me means "taking part", while "being a member" kind of implies one have to apply for membership or something. So in the end I think I slightly prefer "WikiProject Projectname participants". But I oppose forcing it onto the projects since I think that the projects should decide about their own name space below their project name. I suggest just suggesting the new naming to them and offering help to move the category if you like to do that. However, I suggest being a bit harsher when it comes to naming like "Members of / Participants in WikiProject Projectname" since they should not put things in front of "WikiProject Projectname" but after it in "their own name space". --David Göthberg 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. If this rename doesn't go through then it would be good to go to each project and ask them if they have a preference. -- Ned Scott 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woha! I went and read the policy document in question and guess what I found? Only one of all the WikiProject user categories has correct naming according to the policy, namely category:Wikipedians in WikiProject Science. As I understand the policy and practice it could also be named category:WikiProject Science Wikipedians. I took a look at many other user categories and all I can find do use such naming. Also take a look here: Wikipedia:User categorization. So it seems the consistent thing to do is to use the word "Wikipedians" instead of "members/participants". In this new case I am not sure which ordering of the words I prefer. --David Göthberg 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that interpretation of the standard, since "WikiProject" already does the disambiguation (the reason behind the standard). However, that said, I think that this would be a nice compromise. If we go this route, I prefer "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject <x>", for clarity, and based on previous discussions. - jc37 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, you are perhaps right that the important thing is that there is "Wiki(something)" in the names to disambiguate them from normal article space categories. And I still think that the names should begin with the "Wiki(something)" part. And I really like the word "participants" but I definitely think that "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject X" simply is too long. So perhaps this is a case where we should deviate from the practice that all user categories contains the word "Wikipedian(s)". Thus simply making it "WikiProject X participants"? Although "Wikipedians in WikiProject X" does look more like the other user categories so I think I slightly prefer that. Though this is a tough decision. --David Göthberg 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been many nominations on this page that ensure that "Wikipedian" is in the name of a user category, and they have generally been supported. However, like all guidelines, exceptions can be made if there is a good reason for them. In particular, there has been resistance to changing the names of instrument and language categories since they have had such a long-standing tradition in the babel system. This is another case where I think that an exception could be made since the "Wiki-" prefix provides the self-reference needed to distinguish these as project categories rather than article categories. Personally, I could go either way as long as the names are consistent, but shorter category names tend to be easier to handle. —Cswrye 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Anal-retentive unnecessary change. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Renaming is up to the WikiProjects themself. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 11

edit

Category:Friendly Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, yet another category where it is against the rules for the category not to be applicable. Why do we have these? -Amarkov babble 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not terrible to indicate an attitude like this, so the userbox should stay. But a category that should be both all-inclusive and assumed is useless. The issue isn't expressing the sentiment, it's using a category for it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I just don't want to end up as the joykiller forum.--Mike Selinker 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Angel Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have actual angels editing Wikipedia, and the category seems to be mostly for showing off the emoticon. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Either you're using the "This user is an angel" box, which makes no sense, or you're using the other one, which, even ignoring its not being related to being an angel, is against the rules not to do. What else would you do, try to do the WRONG thing? -Amarkov babble 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being that the alternative is deliberately doing the wrong thing sometimes because you can't be bothered to do what's right and not trying to be pleasant. -Amarkov blahedits 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying we can't be kind, what we mean is that it's pointless to encourage kindness where kindness is already law.--WaltCip 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about any of that, but personally, I think a userbox/userpage comment is enough. What need is there for a category for this? - jc37 14:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've discovered that there's a large gap between kindness and civility, and while we have a policy encouraging civility, only in cases where the contributor is not "established" does it seem to be enforcable. (i.e. see the Giano arbcom case) On the other hand, this allows people to commit themselves to go the extra mile and actively be kind to others. (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a category for that. Categories are not supposed to be all-inclusive. Everyone should be kind. The alternative is that everyone who is not in that category is not kind, and it doesn't work.--WaltCip 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

category:Users currently away from Wikipedia to category:Wikipedians who are not currently active

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

The result of the debate was merge. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created yesterday. This is identical to this deletion.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Wikipedians who speak Runglish to category:User en-ru

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

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's "Russian English."--Mike Selinker 16:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Wikipedians who speak Dhivehi (Mahl) to category:User dv-mahl

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

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another language category outlier. There doesn't seem to be a different iso code for mahl, so it should use the dv category. Unless someone else knows better, of course.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User writing systems to category:Wikipedians by writing system

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

The result of the debate was rename. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:User languages to category:Wikipedians by language

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

The result of the debate was merge. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems identical to the "User instruments" category we merged into category:Wikipedians by musical instrument. The babel categories wouldn't necessarily change, though.--Mike Selinker 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 10

edit

Soccer redux

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

The result of the debate was rename all. --Mike Selinker 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one I'd like to try again. Here we have two syntaxes where we only need one, as evidenced in the RC Strasbourg categories with only one member between them.--Mike Selinker 05:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Why did a lack of consensus whether to rename or delete, with NOBODY saying to keep the categories as they are, not default to rename? -Amarkov babble 05:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you asked, Amarkov. User:Kbdank71 and I have a gentleman's disagreement over how a discussion like that should end. KB says, essentially, if there's no agreement on a course, there's no consensus. I say, a nomination has two gates, the delete gate and the rename gate. If it it gets consensus on delete, it's deleted. If not, and the rest of the votes are for renaming, it gets renamed. The only way you get no consensus in my world is if the battle is between keep and either rename or delete (or both). But I'm probably in the minority of editors on this approach.--Mike Selinker 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems as legitimate as categories who would categorize fans of American football teams. Rename per nomination.--WaltCip 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems to be a discussion on CfD that F.C./A.F.C. should be FC/AFC? - jc37 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename;by any reasonable "single tranferable vote" reading of the sentiments expressed at the original nom.Alai 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized

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

The result of the debate was already deleted as re-creation.--Mike Selinker 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted content. I say delete and salt the earth.--Mike Selinker 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one probably should have been speedied. Either way, let's delete and salt this baby.--WaltCip 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly speediable, which I shall now do, I'd rather not get Punic with this unless recreation gets truly persistent.(A 'deleted' bluelink might actually be less effective in getting people to take the hint than a category redlink, for one thing.)Alai 23:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you still categorize people into a salted category anyway? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.You can categorise into a category for which there's no page at all, the only difference is the redlink.Salting actually makes that blue, but is "less subtle hint" not to make a category page than mere deletion.Part of the problem with recreation isn't so much persistence on the part of the original perp, as people 'patrolling' Special:Wanted categories, and (re)creating categories whether sensible or not.Alai 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User +25000 edits

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

The result of the debate was already deleted and a new category has risen in its place.--Mike Selinker 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unreasonably irritated by this category I nominated before because of its lousy syntax. I don't care much about the category:Wikipedians by number of edits subcategories, but I hope we can all agree that this one can't stand. If someone wants to create a properly named category:Wikipedians with over 25,000 edits, they should go ahead, but this has to go.--Mike Selinker 05:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's delete and salt. If we start getting into Babel categorization of editing, this place will seem less like Wikipedia and more like USENET. We have barnstars for that sort of thing. Those who place effort into their edits will receive rewards if they deserve it.--WaltCip 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 9

edit

Category:User conlang

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

The result of the debate was rename.--WaltCip 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I thought we were through with "User..." categories besides Babel... --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who play PS2 games

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

As with the below nomination, the result of the debate was rename to Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games.--WaltCip 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games. Joining with nomination below. Please make comments there.--Mike Selinker 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sony PlayStation 3 fans

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

The result was rename and, as per the amended nomination, the category will be changed to Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games.--WaltCip 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian PlayStation 3 fans, or suggest another name. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Just delete it. It's a waste of space, and it's the same as these other categories that have "WikiPedians who like Pizza Hut" or "WikiPedians who like iPods", etc.. Information not best presented through the category system.--WaltCip 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 8

edit

Category:Child Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

edit

Booksworm Talk to me!

Cyde, big question, if you contest this policy, why on earth would you have a userbox from this category? Booksworm
  • Keep per my arguments in the born in 1993 category discussion. Thryduulf 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CHILD specifically talks about Wikipedians who self-identify as being under 13. If we don't allow Wikipedians under the age of 13 to disclose their age at all (which is what this nomination seems to be going towards), there would be no point in WP:CHILD at all. That wouldn't make much sense, would it? --- RockMFR 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having them not disclose their age in the first place would be a far better cure wouldn't it?

Delete

edit
Delete, see related discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you support it. You can't delete things per a PROPOSAL, because nobody is obligated to follow it. -Amarkov babble 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's how proposals become policy. I can recommend deletion on any grounds that make sense to me. Nobody else has to agree with my rationales, of course.--Mike Selinker 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you can recommend deletion for whatever you please. You can recommend deletion because your dog is black. That doesn't lend any credibility to your position. For that, you have to give GOOD arguments. -Amarkov babble 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is aware of your position, Amarkov.--Mike Selinker 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...? -Amarkov babble 02:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard you the first time. In the 1993 argument below, I heard you the first through eleventh times. Please register your opinion and then let others do so without the attacks and constant challenges. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That might make sense were this a vote, but this is a debate. Thus, I'm going to continue to support my opinion, not just register it and then never respond to others. -Amarkov babble 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever works for you. But I suspect that comments like "For that, you have to give GOOD arguments" will not win you any converts on this forum. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" but this is a debate." - Semantically, I might suggest that it's "a discussion to determine consensus", but "debate" is accurate enough, I suppose (I've used both terms myself : ) - jc37 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many things are potentially harmful. Not censoring Wikipedia is potentially harmful. That isn't grounds for deletion. -Amarkov babble 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please note my use of the word "too".Obviously, "this is potentially harmful" is not sufficient grounds—but that's not what I said.Powers T 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
COPPA only applies to commercial sites which solicit information. This is neither. -Amarkov babble 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, we're not collecting information from minors. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be useless, isn't it? We're just redoing the previous discussion. -Amarkov babble 04:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By logic, this argument can't have an agreement on keep or delete, or the results of the previous argument will be nullified and we'll have inconsistency.--WaltCip 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost makes me wish someone nominated all the user age categories and actually got them deleted. -Amarkov babble 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold!.--WaltCip 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't WANT them deleted. Thus "almost".-Amarkov babble 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 7

edit

Instrument debabelization

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

The result of the debate was keep.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I think this ends our conversion of the Babel system. As of now, Babel should be reserved for languages, computer languages, and instrument proficiencies.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a trio of popular instruments to start this process, seeing if people agree with the plan. We have now merged all of the non-language babel categories except for the instruments. Like for cars, video games, aircraft, anime, and the others we've deleted, I believe that having babel categories for instruments has no encyclopedia construction purposes (that is, I can imagine wanting to know if a user played the sax, but not how well). We've also converted all "User (instrument)" categories to "Wikipedian (instrument)-ists" or "Wikipedian (instrument) players," so we have analogs for all these categories to feed into. Doing so will not increase the size of those categories, as the user instrument subcategory template (which will need changing) already puts, say, "User guitar-1" into "Wikipedian guitarists". Note that this plan will not delete any userboxes, just the separate categories.Let me know if you agree with this direction, and if it goes somewhere, I'll nominate the rest.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose.Like the language templates, proficiency is an important consideration when it comes to instruments.For example, I'm currently in Category:User piano-1, but without the important qualification of -1, I would feel obligated to remove myself entirely from the pianist category.This is similar to a person who knows some elementary amount of (say) German but would not want to be considered a German-speaker.Powers T 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: There is a clear value to categorizing Wikipedian instrumentalists by proficiency, as this can be useful for finding users who are willing to make freely licensed recordings of musical pieces. I'm not sure we need such a high degree of precision, but having a user category for advanced and virtuoso players of individual instruments is useful; one for beginning and intermediate players would probably be useful too (as these folks are certainly a valuable resource for article editing even if they don't choose to provide recordings). Besides these two categories, I don't see a need for others, but I think it's clear that we should offer a facility for sorting instrumentalists by skill level. —ptk✰fgs 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would enthusiastically support this proposal. So "0" and "1" categories would go into "Wikipedian novice (instrument)-ists" and "2," "3", and "4" categories would go into "Wikipedian (instrument)-ists"? That works for me. I amended the proposal accordingly. (I'm also fine with "Wikipedian X-ists" and "wikipedian advanced X-ists".)--Mike Selinker 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Technically the languages could be placed in such a system (WP novices; WPs; WP advanced;). I think the babel system exists, and has a long time of usage. If we want to discuss changing the babel system, fine, but I don't think we should do it in this way. Please let me know if you think I've missed something : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who encourage civility

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't they all do so? --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Astrology user templates

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes, found lurking in Category:CfD 2006-10. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 6

edit

WP participants

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Category:WikiProject Germanic Mysticism contents are entirely mainspace articles, all of which are in category:Nazi mysticism, which I repurposed as a mainspace category. So the Germanic Mysticism category should be deleted as part of CFD, where I have moved it.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the complete list of WikiProject members, but it is the ones who don’t have the “WikiProject X” format. I’m not brave enough to nominate the ones who have no difference from the others except for having “Members” or “Participants in” or some other construction. But I figured we should attempt to agree that all such categories should have the correct name of the project in them. As always, please point out errors in the nominations and I will fix them.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 1

edit

These all seem noncontroversial, and can close when the others do.--Mike Selinker 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 2

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

WP collaborators

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

The result of the debate was rename except MOTD (to be followed up).--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These don’t have the formats listed above, so I’ve moved them out of the WikiProject section and into category:Wikipedians by collaboration, where they should match their brethren there.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User template coder-n

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly tagged this one under CSD C1, but since it's been around for a while, and since it is very hard to be sure that it hasn't had a user for four days (a requirement of CSD C1) I've decided to nominate this the slow way. Picaroon9288 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in burritology

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burritology is a neologism invented to annoy a teacher. This is, in essence, a "Wikipedians who eat..." category without those exact words. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on the foundations of a WikiPedia rule - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.--WaltCip 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VegaDark 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gray, I don't think the word was invented to annoy a teacher.The Langmaker site isn't serious; see the disclaimer ("Please don't mistake this site for being an accurate dictionary; by design, it's not, but is rather a place to celebrate word coinings").On the other hand, the word burritology has been in use for at least a decade, having been popularized by the original Burrito Pagewebsite in the article, "Landmark Texts of Burritology".This website (along with the term "burritology") was featured in Sunset, v196.n5 (May 1996): pp100(6). , Restaurant Business,01/15/97, Vol. 96, Issue 2, Database Magazine; Apr/May97, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p33, 4p, 3bw, , and Texas Monthly; Oct97, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p144, 6p, 2c.According to KFOR 1240, the Burrito Page was "devoted to advancing the fledgling Science of Burritology -- an interdisciplinary practice combining Burrito Studies with Modern Astrology. By choosing from various fillings, cheeses, extras and salsas, you can gain valuable insights into your personality, life, past and future". More recently, it has been popularized by burritophile.com, which refers to John Roemer's 1993 essay "Cylindrical God" as the "base text for the then-emerging science of burritology."Other sites, such as burritoeater.com and sfburrito.com represent the major burritologists working in the field today. (Heh)Wikipedian burritologists are presently hard at work on four major research projects: Burrito, San Francisco burrito, List_of_burrito_fillings, and Timeline_of_the_burrito.As a category, "burritology" is as encyclopedic, as let's say, Wikipedians interested in psionics, which currently has 50 members. :-) —Viriditas | Talk 06:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Burritologist Wikipedians and categorize under Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle per above links. This is a documented lifestyle. —Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism in the making : ) - jc37 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Keep; I think that my colleague Viriditas has made the case ably for the long-term endurance of the term "burritology" as used by other serious burrito scholars, so whether it is a neologism is probably a matter of debate. I do understand the hesitation to describe burritology as a formal field of study, although I think the case for burritology is actually considerably stronger than, say, astrology, given that burritology has a verifiable set of objects of studies and a verifiable set of outcomes, albeit also sometimes subjective ones. I am also not sure how I feel about describing burritology as a "lifestyle"; that is, people who are devoted to eating burritos are not always devoted to the analysis of burritos; so I would argue that burritology is in fact an analytical project undertaken, admittedly, mostly by people who practice the lifestyle of burritophilia. (This is not unusual in scholarly undertakings; for instance, most people who are anthropologists of dance also are dancers themselves in one form or another.) In my case I feel that my "lifestyle", if I have one, is as a burritophile (I'm kind of against the idea of having a lifestyle, but I will bow to the larger culture on this one) while my activity and identity is as a scholar. And since one of my fields of interest is the history, culture, politics and culinary development of the burrito, I consider myself to be in part a burrito scholar. If we are to rename the field from burritology, I would suggest "Burrito Studies", appreciating its necessarily interdisciplinary nature, and rename the category, "Wikipedians Interested in Burrito Studies"; or alternately, rename the category as "Wikipedian Burrito Scholars." Along these lines, I would like to commend my colleague Viriditas for the advancement of the description of this important field within Wikipedia. Joewright 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a neologism to me. Besides, there's no burritology article, so I don't think that this category would serve any practical purpose. —Cswrye 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 4

edit

Category:Wikipedians who use Flags of the World

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is misleading, since it's actually for wikipedians who contribute to FOTW, and should be named accordingly. I suggest renaming it to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World to reflect its actual usage. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have good televisual taste

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flatulent Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TMI.--Mike Selinker 08:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Cochin

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Kochi, since Cochin is now Kochi. -- ProveIt (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993

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

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Co-nominating Category:Wikipedians born in 1994 and Category:Wikipedians born in 1995. Actually, nominating is probably the wrong term, since I want them kept. They were previously deletedhere, but I feel that using WP:CHILD, not having close to consensual support, wasn't a reason to delete them. Given the rather low percentage in support of it, I suspect the issue was simply unequal representation. Thus, listing here.Amarkov babble 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add to the nomination as I do actually want them deleted, and was intending to relist them today. These categories were deleted in September (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6), recreated, speedied by me over the last few days, and recreated yet again. I would ask editors to cast their minds back to the cute1 4 u episode and the resulting debate about personal info of young people and protecting them on Wikipedia. I feel that there are two sides to the battle: reducing the amount of info young people reveal on wiki, and (relevant here) encouraging them not to reveal they are children in the first place. If we don't know that an editor is a child they are then indeed free to edit without discrimination. These categories actually hinder not help their "equal representation". Please note that these categories are fed by {{User current age}}; if we decide to delete the categories we ought to mandate that that template refuse to create categories for years of birth which could contain people 13 years or under. Of course if we keep the categories no further action is needed. --kingboyk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's obvious that these arguments won't stop, I might as well respond to them. Here's how they can be useful. You know how you might go to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux to help on the Linux article? These work in the same way. If you need someone to help in a teenage/child/adult/senior related article, you can browse through the Wikipedians born whenever categories and see if you can find someone. -Amarkov babble 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh purleease... that's exactly the kind of discrimination you say you're aiming to avoid. How do you know a 14 year old isn't going to be interested in Val Doonican and a retired gent isn't an expert on the Teletubbies?! --kingboyk 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I actually supported deleting these categories earlier, but WP:CHILD is highly contested, and it shouldn't be considered a policy (or even a guideline) right now. Until we've reached consensus on this, I think that they should be allowed. —Cswrye 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the under-13 categories and bar against recreation by modifying the templates. I don't mind the by-year categories for people whom I feel are old enough to make informed decisions about putting themselves at risk on the internet. But I think you have to make a judgement call to stop that at some age, and for me WP:CHILD suggests 13 is a good age for that.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have to make a judgement call to stop that? AGE is not personally identifying information, and WP:CHILD doesn't prohibit people under 13 giving their ages, anyway. -Amarkov babble 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, Amarkov, but I disagree with it. I think informed decision-making ability starts about that age, and so I'm comfortable using this tool to help protect those I don't feel can make those decisions by themselves. This category creates a visible pool of people who fit that description, and that makes me less comfortable. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. However, I question why you, or anyone else here, has the right to judge what is necessary to protect people against their will. Their parents should have the power to decide how far to protect them, not people at User categories for discussion. On another note, this is turning into quite a little miniature version of WP:CHILD. -Amarkov babble 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have the right to create an environment which a parent might deem safe or unsafe. That involves lots of little decisions like this.--Mike Selinker 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The price of throwing out WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored seems too high just to prevent children from giving ages. It's not like we don't have young admins. -Amarkov babble 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a parent or anyone doesn't think Wikipedia is safe, then they don't have to spend time here; simple as that. If this category is deleted, then all the other 'Wikipedians born in' categories should be deleted as well. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical. Anthony Rupert 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then I'll nominate them for deletion posthaste after this consensus.--WaltCip 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine, just don't use the fact that all of them should be deleted to get this subset deleted. Because if you do that, and then the others get kept, there is a problem. -Amarkov babble 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please explain to me what exactlly the big problem is that people have with this category? Sure, there are several people that have been born in 1993 that don't care about the category, but where's the rule that says that all users absolutely have to post in every category that pertains to them? Anthony Rupert 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHILD. Some people just think it has good arguments and use them, and others don't understand the fact that it isn't policy, so "Delete because of WP:CHILD is not an argument by itself. -Amarkov babble 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus, then, isn't an argument over whether the category should be deleted, but if WP:CHILD stands as an effective guideline/policy.--WaltCip 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Thryduulf 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because...? -Amarkov babble 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because.--WaltCip 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, good comeback. (sarcastic clapping)
But seriously, I don't see it as facilitating the advertising of preteens ages. As I said before, if any user on here doesn't want people to know his/her age, then they don't have to post it. Unless you're an autobiographer, I don't think any user on here posts every single thing about their personal life. Anthony Rupert 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no point in extending it, we'll reach a consensus no sooner than WP:CHILD will. -Amarkov babble 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to close it soon as no consensus. I wonder if we should consider pointing the Wikimedia Foundation's corporate counsel to this discussion. Either they think they're covered by COPPA or not, and it doesn't really matter if we disagree.--Mike Selinker 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The debate isn't really about COPPA; very few think it actually applies. -Amarkov babble 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, I'm closing it.--Mike Selinker 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 3

edit

TV fans

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

The result of the debate was rename all.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match all other categories of category:Wikipedians interested in television and category:Wikipedians by musician.--Mike Selinker 03:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of the Stones category and it sounds good to me :-). - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who always wear socks

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a stretch to me.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who dislike long sleeve shirts

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be the least heated dislike category we've seen.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Orange Julius

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the Culver's category below, and from the same user. Gots to go.--Mike Selinker 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 1

edit

Category:Druidic True Neutral

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated.--Mike Selinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Druidic True Neutral Wikipedians, found it lurking. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm suitably impressed : ) - (no sarcasm intended whatsoever) - As for the rest, I think they should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, otherwise, delete. (I think it's rather similar to the "Han shot first" discussion.) I was just noting that Druidic True neutral is idiosyncratic to AD&D. (3.0/3.5 D&D isn't AD&D, any more than AD&D is Basic/Expert/etc D&D.) - jc37 01:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, unless it can make a will save against 17. —ptk✰fgs 03:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I think that the alignment categories are different from the "Han shot first" category in that it can refer to the personality of the person rather than his or her interests, much like the subcategories in Category:Wikipedians by Myers-Briggs type. For example, I listed myself as Lawful Good because I believe that reflects my personality, even though I've never played the game itself. That being said, I wouldn't be upset with a delete because I'm not sure if personality categories are all that important in terms of aiding the project. —Cswrye 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think all the comments above pretty much cement deletion : ) - jc37 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adhering to a D&D 3.0+ standard represents a systemic bias. Pre-WotC versions of D&D have every right to be represented in Wikipedia as well. There is no reason that a Wikipedian should have to self-identify with an alignment that conforms to such an arbitrary standard. --RoninBKETC 08:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the discussion above, then I think you totally misunderstood it. Of course a user can place such a userbox on their userpage (I would presume). The question here is: a.) should such a category exist. and b.) what category would be most appropriate for said userbox if kept.My opinion on "a" is delete. But if kept, I suggest Category:Wikipedians who play Advanced Dungeons & Dragons be the category. It's more useful for collaboration, etc. However, whether a wikipedian feels that they are best represented by good, neutral, evil, or even a sign of the zodiac, is just not something we should categorise by. - jc37 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kinky Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was keep--Mike Selinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another unencyclopaedic nonsense category.--Konst.ableTalk 13:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Read further into the category: it deals with an alternative lifestyle. Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in BDSM.--WaltCip 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

User bss-X

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn: listed on WP:CFD/WU. TimBentley (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These 4 categories are subcategories of Category:User bss, the category for bass singers which is due to be merged into Category:Wikipedian singers, but say they are for bass guitar players. The appropriate categories are Category:User bass guitar-1 and similar. Thus these categories have no use. All empty by the way. TimBentley (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/November_2006&oldid=1223923631"