< June 2008	August 2008 >

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

The result of the discussion was: delete as a creation of the same indef-blocked sock mentioned below, empty cat, and no objections. WODUP 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper grammar (Wikipedians who loves?), too specific of a subject for collaboration, knowing "who loves" a plane is not encyclopedically relevant or worth categorizing. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely ever know what to make of "Wikipedians who love" categories. Technically, love is an intense emotion (comparable to hate), but it is so often used superficially or as the equivalent of "like". When someone states that they "love" Emperor Penguins, for instance, it is virtually impossible to determine whether they have a real (i.e. encyclopedically-relevant) interest in Aptenodytes forsteri, think that the bird is cute, liked March of the Penguins or Happy Feet, have a hankering for Emperor Penguin meat, or really love penguins. As such, inclusion in the category fails to convey any specific information about a user. Okay, enough ranting. Delete per nom. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single article cat, and if kept would require a rename at the very least. (Also is currently empty.) - jc37 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete as a creation of the same indef-blocked sock mentioned below, empty cat, and no objections. WODUP 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper grammar (Wikipedians who loves?), too specific of a subject for collaboration, knowing "who loves" a tank is not encyclopedically relevant or worth categorizing. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my rationale for the F-22 category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single article cat, and if kept would require a rename at the very least. (Also is currently empty.) - jc37 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. WODUP 05:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians who like South Park, which is the current naming convention of "Wikipedians by TV show" categories. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/speedy merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these kinds of categories that pop up have better alternatives that are more clearly related to encyclopedic collaboration. For this specific case, Category:WikiProject South Park participants. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 probable vandalism - the category was created by a (now indef-blocked) sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far to general to be useful, America goes to a disambiguation page. I assume the creator meant Category:Wikipedians in the United States? If so, that already exists. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live in America(Magical Page Creator (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- And? How is that a reason to keep a redundant, non-specific category? VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 probable vandalism - the category was created by a (now indef-blocked) sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by video game" category, which have all been deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What if more users like User:Mikael GRizzly or User:Snow93 loves Command and Conquer?(Magical Page Creator (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- First of all, you added this category to these users' user pages without consent, which is innapropriate. Second, there could be a million users in this category, and that wouldn't make it any less unencyclopedic. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 probable vandalism - the category was created by a (now indef-blocked) sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by individual film" category, which have all been deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what if many users like ID4?(Magical Page Creator (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Indeed, what if many users like this movie? It doesn't change the deletion rationale whatsoever, and that's hardly a reason to keep the category. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 probable vandalism - the category was created by a (now indef-blocked) sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars, except that is much more encyclopedic than "who love". Could probably speedy this as substantially similar recreation of Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What if users like User:Greyman and User:SFH loves Star Wars?(Magical Page Creator (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- First of all, you added this category to these users' user pages without consent, which is innapropriate. Second, there could be a million users in this category, and that wouldn't make it any less unencyclopedic. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 probable vandalism - the category was created by a (now indef-blocked) sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by video game" category, which have all been deleted. Would not object to a speedy delete as substantially similar to the deleted Category:Wikipedians who play StarCraft (deleted here). VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What if users like Kimera757 loves Starcraft?(Magical Page Creator (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- First of all, you added this category to this users' user page without consent, which is innapropriate. Second, there could be a million users in this category, and that wouldn't make it any less unencyclopedic. VegaDark (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by individual" category, which have all been deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper naming convention, "Wikipedians by wikipedia award" category which have all been deleted here. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been hiding unnoticed among the TV show categories for quite a while, but this is in fact a TV station and not a TV show. "Users in this category are fans of The CW Television Network" - Not helpful to categorize "fans" of a particular TV network; currently the "who like" naming convention is only used for individual TV shows. This is the only TV station user category that I am aware of. If users wish to collaborate on articles related to this station, a more appropriate category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in The CW Television Network (which may be too narrow for collaboration, since I'm not sure if one can conclude that those who are interested in the network are interested in collaborating on each of the shows the station plays). At extreme minimum needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like The CW Television Network to match the article name at The CW Television Network, and should probably be renamed to a non-"who like" naming convention as well if kept. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who doesn't like films? Far too general for any sort of collaborative potential, and probably includes 99% of Wikipedians. The current system we have at Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film series is far better for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from the peanut gallery. Hiding T 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as 0-level category, which have an extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as 0-level category, which have an extensive history of deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable wiki, no article on Club Penguin Wiki. Does not benefit encyclopedia to search for such users.VegaDark (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete though I don't think it matters if the Wiki is notable or not. In this case all that matters if the collaborative value. I could certainly see situations where having such user categories is helpful (such as clarifying licensing information if WIkipedia is using content from that wiki, cross wiki-vandalism, cross-wiki collaboration, etc). However, this category doesn't seem to be set up for that kind of thing. -- Ned Scott 10:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 – feel free to create Category:Wikipedians in Miami-Dade County, Florida. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to

Suggest renaming to the more specific name with the county included. There are several dozen unsatisfied links to the county-inclusive category, maybe due to the pattern used in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Miami-Dade County, Florida. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Islaammaged126 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is an article on Miami, Florida and the population size is certainly big enough to sustain a category. As for not being specific enough, I would fully support the creation of Category:Wikipedians in Miami-Dade County, Florida, with this current category as a subcategory. That way we could categorize both the people in the city as well as people in the county but not in the city. VegaDark (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, some of you are probably thinking "Hey, didn't we delete a category like this already? Doesn't this qualify as a G4 speey?" The answer to this is that a near- identical category like this was deleted after a UCFD, but as G7 author request. If we want to get technical, a G7 does not preclude someone from recreating the content, so hence we are back here. Last time the discussion was headed towards a WP:SNOW deletion, however, so I certainly wouldn't object to another user deleting this as G4 or perhaps IAR. Reasons for deletion are the same, and to quote the nom of the last UCFD, "This category isn't useful to the project. Rollback is, in of itself, nothing more than a quicker way of doing something anyone else can do. There's no particular reason any other Wikipedian needs to find another with rollback, save factionalism". Additionally, this time around the name of the category doesn't make sense and goes against standard naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said last time as well: Delete to help avoid possible misconceptions about rollback. I might reconsider if someone can think of a reason why we would need this since we have Special:Listusers/rollbacker. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ned. Redundant to the tools we have already. Hiding T 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sceptre ^(talk) 11:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Gman124^talk 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not helpful to the project. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd title of "Wikipedia users" instead of the standard "Wikipedians" naming convention. Additionally, the description says "This category tracks users indefinitely blocked for spam", so we should probably add "indefinitely" in the title so users who are only blocked for a period of time are not included in this. Finally, "for spamming" makes more sense than "for spam". Also wouldn't be opposed to simply deleting, since I'm not sure we need to keep track of this. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming or delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, could be very useful for on-going spam fighting. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by band" category, which have all been deleted. See Arashi. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose deletion on this basis. Hiding T 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in a book series. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Artemis Fowl as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose deletion on this basis. Hiding T 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean renaming? VegaDark (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Sorry, the perils of cut and pasting. I won't object to the nominator's wishes in the spirit of building a consensus. Hiding T 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians by band" category, which have all been deleted. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose deletion on this basis. Hiding T 12:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - single user category, and has been a single user category for some time. In addition, in the past this cat was a parent to several subcats, all of which have been deleted. - jc37 09:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 09:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my reasoning the last time this was nominated. VegaDark (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to populate categories when they get nominated all the time. A lot of editors don't bother anymore, because of these kinds of CfDs. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I think you know, UCFDs have been closed in the past (including by me) with the suggestion to allow time for growth. This one doesn't have that in its favour. It's been around for some time (though its name was "...who like..." and it underwent a rename to "...interested in...") - and the single member hasn't been active since March. So that arguement wouldn't seem to apply in this specific case. - jc37 06:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood me. Some of us have given up on some of these categories, which include promoting and maintaining, because they get bulldozed at uCfD when we're not looking. I'm not asking for more time. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Ned. There's nothing to be gained by deleting the category, even if it is a single-user category. Either way, the thing is going to remain in the database (just flagged as deleted). In fact, it will probably take up more storage space by adding information to the deletion log, the templates involved, etc. It would be far more helpful for someone to create a userbox to help add people to the category rather than delete it for lack of people. For a category like this, I just can't see deleting it for lack of listees. For something like "Wikipedians interested in horsehair bristle shoe polishing brushes" or something obscure like that, then yes. While reality TV is totally boring to me, I know a lot of people are interested, so it's obviously just not a well known category. No reason to delete it. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User categories are intended for collaborative purposes. Who are you suggesting will be collaborating in this case? A single user who's been inactive since March? And with whom would this person be collaborating? There's no one in the category with them. That is why single user categories are often deleted. And, as I've noted above, several months have passed, and still a single member. - jc37 06:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, a lot of us have just given up using these categories because they keep getting bulldozed like this, and usually by a very small group at uCfD. I would like to see some of these categories kept, so that we can actually tell other editors about them without feeling like we're wasting time. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bulldozed"... Well, I think I'd best ignore the comment, and allow you your opinion, which, in this case, seems a bit obtuse to me.

"I would like to see some of these categories kept, so that we can actually tell other editors about them without feeling like we're wasting time." - You're kidding, right? Ever taken a moment to count the number of user categories? Most are "kept" by the mere fact of not being nominated.

The rest of the arguement is noted in the template at the top about comments concerning the process, etc. And may be duly ignored as not concerning this category under discussion.

If I hadn't nominated this, and was just WP:BOLD, and removed the single user (who hasn't edited in months) from a category which is populated only by that user, do you think anyone would care? I very nearly did just that. (WP:IAR and such), but as you know, I tend to prefer the open-ness of process. I'm seeing several negatives for this category, and not much in the way of positives. All the sub-cats have been deleted, and there's a single member, who's inactive. This rather seems to be "housekeeping" at this point. - jc37 08:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Yes, there's nowt to be gained by deleting it, but there's also nowt to be gained by keeping it. It matters little if the bit is on or off in this case, and to save power I vote off. Hiding T 11:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category. "These contributors consider themselves studs to the extent that their involvement in society has given them insight into the nature of sexual attraction and character of charisma." Does not facilitate collaboration, unencyclopedic. VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Subjective, to the max : ) - jc37 07:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at it and it has one user in it. On that basis I won't oppose deletion. If it was an entrenched category meant and taken in a manner of horseplay I'd maybe be inclined to give some benefit of doubt, but none needed here. Hiding T 12:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedians in central Østlandet to [[:Category:Wikipedians in Eastern Norway - jc37 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Østlandet redirects to Eastern Norway, so that portion needs a rename. Second, I don't think we need to distinguish users in "central" Eastern Norway vs. other areas. No article on Central Eastern Norway to help us discern what geographic region this might include, so what "central" includes looks to be subjective, and I suggest eliminating that part of the name. VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians in Eastern Norway as nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: replicates the (automatically generated) list at Wikipedia:Huggle/Users. The category was maintained by User:HuggleCategory, which I've indefblocked as either an unauthorised bot or an undeclared SPA, neither of which ought to be running around tagging userpages. – ırıdescent 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. So many users use this anyway, that maintaining a list isn't particularly helpful, and now that the category is no longer maintained it will become even less useful. VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gurch has also said that he doesn't see a need for it. – ırıdescent 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an incomplete duplicate. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 13:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess, but I don't see any reason to indef block the user, since they weren't doing anything wrong. There is no requirement to declare SPAs. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this really per the User section and Ned, whoever it was has not asked to be unblocked so it looks like they have moved on. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Seems redundant, not needed. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per extensive precedent against personal user categories. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep obviously.~~ Wait :-) - I'm sorry if I've offended the delicate sensibilities of anyone here at Wikipedia. I've been editing so much on other projects lately, I forgot how touchy things like this can be here. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for running a tight ship given the huge number of editors and edits that take place every minute. Anyway... If there is a better w: alternative to User Categories (something that is permitted by policy and very helpful on Commons) that helps to gather all of a user's various tools together in one consolidated space? Sure, there's All Pages, but that's a pain since you have to constantly change the namespace (at least if you edit in as many namespaces as I do), plus not all pages are worthy of being categorized for easy finding later. So, if there is a better way to do it here, then I'm fine with deleting the category; otherwise, the policy should be changed to allow it. Not for vanity, but actually for doing productive work here. --Willscrlt (Talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote from Keep to Wait because I think this is really part of a bigger issue that needs discussing (in a more appropriate forum, wherever that is). It would be nice to finish setting up the current category as an example for use during that discussion, but I also understand how that could set a bad precedent. Deleting it in the normal time frame won't be devastating to further discussions, but keeping it for a while would probably be more helpful. Anyway, that's why I changed my vote. --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that it would take you exactly the same amount of time to add a link you need to some list in your userspace as it would take you to add a category to each page you would like to be included in the list. So, what's the benefit of having a category over a list?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Good question. One word answer: Templates. Over at Commons, a template I'm developing will automatically detect existing user categories (it doesn't create or even red link non-existent ones) and add that category to the list of images that a user uploads. Then again, Commons has different needs and expectations than w: does. If it weren't for template transclusion, then you'd be absolutely correct. With templates and user categories, however, the list is automatically maintained, and new resources are added almost instantly, and deleted ones drop out just as fast. --Willscrlt (Talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. In light of this explanation, I'm willing to make an exception for just this case, so keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pondering - I wonder if this is something that could evolve into a feature request for the MediaWiki software itself... hidden automatic user pseudo-categories. They only show up to the user him/herself, however, anyone could go access the category by entering Category:User:Example. Users could easily add pages to this pseudo-category in the same way they add pages to their watch list. Templates could also add pages to the category. However, the standard [[Category:User:Example]] at the bottom of article pages and what-not would not (have to) appear there. The tricky thing would be figuring out how to add subcategories to that pseudo category. For example, on Commons, there are categories for commons:Category:Self-created works by User:Willscrlt into which all the photos and other images I created will appear. Lumping everything into a top-level user category is somewhat helpful, but if there are a lot of entries, it would quickly become unwieldy. Obviously I don't have more than a general idea of the concept, but I'd love to get some feedback on ideas so that we can put together a feature request or something. I can definitely see how user categories as currently implemented here could quickly get out of hand, but I'm sure together we are smart enough to figure out a way to make something work. I don't want to be a lone exception to a rule (that's a bad precedent and leads to frustration among Wikipedians), but I don't mind being a impetus for positive change. Perhaps, until something more technically advanced comes up, we could create a Wikiproject, like Wikiproject Usercat for the purpose of helping users to categorize (in a non-offensive way, of course) templates, images, and other resources. Instead of Category:User:Willscrlt it could be Category:Wikiproject Usercat:Willscrlt. Let the project members experiment a bit and see how to best structure things and also develop a formal request once we get some ideas of how to make this work. I think that something like this is necessary, but Category:User:Willscrlt does not necessarily have to be the form. It is the way it's done elsewhere, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best way. Though I do like it when things are the same across all the wikis; it makes everything cleaner and easier. --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Me again. I just wanted to note that I checked the Wikipedia:User categories guidelines before creating the category to be sure that I wasn't going to run afoul of any w:en-specific policies, and there is nothing mentioned there prohibiting or even discouraging the type of category I created. There may be "extensive precedent", but if it's discouraged, then IMO that should be made clear in the guidelines. --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, though you didn't click the link. If you look at WP:UC, there's a section called "overcategorisation". The Template:Main link at the top of that section links to WP:OC/U. There is a section called "Categories that are overly narrow in scope". Though in reading over it, it appears that "single person" can also include a "single user" isn't clear in the text. I'll clarify that after posting this. Thanks for catching that. - jc37 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per extensive, long standing precedent. If ever we were to re-allow this type of category, that would be a discussion for DRV or somewhere similar IMO; keeping an individual category against a sea of precedent to delete, as said above, would be bad. Commons has different rules regarding individual user categories, here you can use the prefix index which makes a category redundant. Seriously, keeping this sets precedent to create 7,405,065 categories (one for every registered user). VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly understand the "sea of precedent", and I will not take it personally or be offended if it's deleted. Could you please link abbreviations in the future. I don't know what DRV is, but if it could help come up with a solution, then that sounds like a good place to go. And, yes, Commons (and all the other projects) have different rules. Comparatively, w:en is very uptight about almost everything, and some of the other projects are far too lackadaisical about many things. This is probably one reason why there are not more editors willing to contributed meaningful amounts in multiple projects. It's really hard to keep all the various policies and precedents in mind as you edit in one place or another. Anyway, yes, there certainly are very valid reasons for allowing users to have categories (images as Ned Scott mentions below, but especially templates in my case), but it's really a much larger issue than my own category under discussion. I'm afraid that the discussion period will end much sooner than the discussion of this issue will, so it would be good if we can split the discussion somewhere more productive. I would rather avoid having the category deleted only to be recreated later, but, like I said, I'm okay with that decision if that's the outcome. Of course, we could keep it alive while the larger discussion continues, but knowing w:en, that is pretty unlikely. ;-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would that be any worse than having the same amount of user pages? -- Ned Scott 05:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From a "page" standpoint (i.e., things taking up room in the database), I don't really see much difference. To me, the biggest concern I have is if suddenly 100s or 1000s of Wikipedians start tagging mainspace articles and other pages with personal category tags. The situation would be made even worse if they didn't have __HIDDENCAT__ added to the category, thus all those personal categories end up displayed at the bottom of articles. I could imagine a situation where a stub had more categories listed than words in the article. That would be very disruptive for the encyclopedia, and thus be contrary to formal policy. No, I think that the "sea of precedent" is basically correct, but I think that working with the developers of the software, we probably could figure out a way to make a similar idea (not involving tons of tags appearing in articles) actually work. --Willscrlt (Talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neutral note: I believe that the commenter above was speaking of WP:DRV. - jc37 06:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the past I would have said delete, simply because it doesn't make much sense to have a user cat for pages in their userspace, but I didn't think about images until Will mentioned it. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, but I'll have to think about it. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- I'll admit that it was an interesting way to describe what's essentially a personal watchlist.

I looked over commons:Category:Self-created works by User:Willscrlt and now I see what you mean by templates. Let's see if I have the "order of operation" correectly. First a page (doesn't matter if it's an uploaded image or a page edited) is added to a category. And so are others, each page being edited to add the category inclusion link. Then the category page is created. Then a template which includes links to the category is created.

That's quite a few edits. Compare to: edit a userpage and add a link to the page (image, article, whatever). create a template which links to the userpage.

Looks to me that we leave out quite a few steps, and we also don't tie up the servers (minimally with this single example, but imagine it multiplied exponentially with every user creating multiple self-tasked categories). Yes, we shouldn't worry about performance, but categories are special, and have been known in the past to tie up the cache. It's one of the reasons that we are so "tight" (as you put it).

In addition, I don't think we really should start seeing categories of "Pages edited by jc37". (That whole question of ownership.) While IANAL, I'll note that this is GDFL, after all.

If you would like to hound the developers about having a new "special" page which lists and sorts images by uploader, feel free. (Though licensing issues may be a stumbling block - I don't know.) But consider that categorising them, isn't categorising the images at all, merely the pages in Image-space which they are displayed. And you can already sort your contributions list (and watchlist) by namespace. So, again, no need for the category. - jc37 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't think that you've quite got the order down the way I envisioned it. Then again, the order in which I've done things at Commons was/is a bit round-about compared to the ideal. Here's how it will be working soon (I'm out of town, so my opportunity to do wiki-work is limited right now) on Commons. I created the categories. I have a custom information template that will automatically categorized photos, images, videos, audio files, and miscellaneous files into appropriate categories if it is identified as being "self" published. All future uploads will include this template at the time of upload (no extra edits involved to add it). For existing files, yes, I would go back and edit them to include the new template. The template does a lot more than just categorize photos, so it's a constructive edit, not just for vanity. So, why all the categories with photos, etc.? Well, remembering that this is on Commons, it's somewhat customary for the more active contributors to group their images together into hidden categories as galleries. That way, if you see a photo or icon you really like, you can go to the category and hopefully find a lot more images you like from the same person. Extending that philosophy onto w:en could be more problematic. As we both pointed out, "ownership" (or at least the perception thereof) and "vanity" flagging of pages would be the biggest problems that immediately come to mind.

I would be interested in reading up on the server cache tie-ups, if you happen to know of any links to the relevant information. Sounds interesting. Also, I meant tight as in "tight ship", orderly, and detail-oriented, as opposed to some of the more derogatory meanings for "tight" that exist. :-) Spend enough time away at other projects and then come back to w:en (or w:de), and it feels totally different... things happen at such a faster pace here. People take things (even little things) far more seriously. There is a lot steeper learning curve, less room for experimentation, and thus a stifling of creativity in some ways. It's totally understandable given the vastly different size of the projects and the participants, and even necessary. It's just a bit of a culture shock, and one that I hope that people here will remember when dealing with issues concerning newbies and other-project participants. w:en can come across as very mean-spirited when really, it's just being efficient. Not that I think either has been the case with this discussion. You've all been very thoughtful and the conversation has been good. So, thank you. --Willscrlt (Talk) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hound"? Ok, that might have come across as a bit "mean spirited". ;-) After all, I'm just talking about a single feature request. That's hardly "hounding" anyone IMO. No worries though. I'll have to look into the watchlist sorting by namespace, and see if that would meet my needs. Can other people do that, too? The real advantage on Commons to the categories is that, even though they are hidden categories, the editor can easily add a link to the category on his/her user page and anyone can view the information (as you just did). Even without a link, since there are only a few standard ways that people name their categories, it's pretty easy to guess, plus they are all children of a categories named "Category:User categories" (or something like that). That makes it an easy collaboration tool. I wasn't aware that you could do that with watchlists. I'm not even sure I'd want everyone to see the pages that are in my watchlist, since some rather odd entries get in there just from reverting vandalism on topics that are not something I'm actually interested in. Perhaps, like you suggested, a user page with links is the best way to go, though it's a much more difficult thing to keep updated than a category which automatically updates itself. There are always trade-offs. --Willscrlt (Talk) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All future uploads will include this template at the time of upload (no extra edits involved to add it)." - Which is still an edit. no matter how you paint it, it takes an edit to place a template on a page. But even so, it's still more edits than just continuing to add to a userpage watchlist.

And nothing negative was intended by the use of the euphemistic infinitive "to hound". Merely to "follow up on"; "chase after"; or whatever semantic that you might find preferable to suggest "bugging" the developers.

And yes, you can filter your watchlist and your contribution history by namespace. And "Image" is a namespace.

As for how someone might find your user subpages, check out User:jc37. I have links at the top of the page just for that. Hope this helps. - jc37 06:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per much precedent, and my comments above. - jc37 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On a related note, all categories for images by uploader have also been deleted. See here, here, here, here, and here, for just a few examples. VegaDark (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I thought about it for a while, and though I don't think such categories would be problematic, there just seems to be several other ways to track these things with the same amount of effort (sometimes less, as noted by Jc37). -- Ned Scott 06:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename - per author request below. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper naming convention of "Editor" rather than "Wikipedian", which has been the standard for years now. Also, "Responses" is improperly capitalized. VegaDark (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian responses to RfA Review as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I have no problems with a rename in this instance, and I'm happy for a speedy close in order for it to be carried out. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 11:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I created this category, and have no objections to renaming as you suggest - I was capitalizing the process and the first word, so Responses just sort of hopped in there. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created the target category; entries can be moved at any time. Is there a bot we can send this request to, or do I have an afternoon of re-categorizing ahead of me? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Betacommandbot used to go through the working page to perform these types of moves, but AFAIK that bot is still blocked. You can certainly look for one to ask though. VegaDark (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 31

Category:Wikipedians who loves the F-22 Raptor

Category:Wikipedians who loves the M1 Abrams Tank

Category:Wikipedians who love South Park

July 30

Category:Wikipedians in America

Category:Wikipedians who love Command and Conquer

Category:Wikipedians who love ID4

Category:Wikipedians who love Star Wars

Category:Wikipedians who love Starcraft

Category:Wikipedians who like Vincent Price

Category:Users who have been awarded the WikiProject Xbox barnstar

Category:Wikipedians who like The CW

Category:Wikipedians who like films

July 25

Category:User nb-0

Category:User nn-0

Category:Wikipedians Who Edit the Club Penguin Wiki

July 14

Category:Wikipedians in Miami, Florida

July 12

Category:User with rollback rights

Category:Wikipedia users blocked for spam

July 9

Category:Wikipedians who like Arashi

Category:Wikipedians who like Artemis Fowl

Category:Wikipedians who like the band McFly

July 4

Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television

Category:Wikipedian studs

Category:Wikipedians in central Østlandet

Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle

July 1

Category:User:Willscrlt

Category:Editor Responses to RfA Review