< April 2007	June 2007 >

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense babel category. "These users wish to speak Inuktitut". Essentially a 0-level category, since this is for people who don't speak the language at all. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --67.101.72.26 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps I am misreading it, but it would seem that this category is for those "who wish to speak", not for those "who wish they could speak". So it's not a 0-level category. It sounds more like it's their preference to speak it. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, it is still useless (unless we want one of these for every language preference people have) and shouldn't be in the babel system at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume that Inuktitut is a valid babel language. This category probably just needs a rename to follow the babel naming conventions. - jc37 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A category for people who feel that they don't have a completed userpage. Yet." - We don't need a category for this. Nobody is going to have a reason to go looking for userpages that are under construction. Looks like the category was created simply for the sake of being associated with the template. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've noticed these templates to be categorized for some time before this category was even made. The previous category for these templates was Under-construction templates, which even included these userpages, and so an alternative catergory was made in order to clean up the category a bit. Does this mean that the userpages should be moved back to the original category, or should we prevent these templates to be categorized in any way at all? ~IS7 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Userpages under construction have no need to be categorized, with the possible exception of drafts of articles (Category:Articles actively undergoing construction contains some of these). So the template ((User page construction)) should not categorize any userpages at all, because there's no navigational value in grouping together "incomplete" userpages - who'd want to look at them? –Pomte 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Noting this this previous discussion, which seems to be similar in context. However, I don't ser this as a recreation, by any means. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since technically all Wikipedia, including user pages, are currently "under construction" by definition of the wiki. If no connsensus to delete, consider a Merge to Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete, as I'm pretty sure that having an userpage under construction doesn't tell that would the user actually need any help, and the purpose of the template would also become very misleading. ~IS7 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge Category:User ot-5 to Category:Wikipedian translators. No consensus to Delete the rest, so Merge all the rest to Category:Wikipedians who would like to learn more languages. - jc37 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These users would like to be able to speak more languages", "This user would like to be able to speak many more languages", etc. etc. Knowing who wants to speak more languages is not useful to Wikipedia at all. The only possible useful one is the last one, stating "This user is a professional translator of one or more languages". It isn't all that helpful without knowing what languages they translate, however, and such a category shouldn't be in the babel system if deemed keepable.

• Delete all except possibly the last one, which would need a rename to something like Category:Wikipedian professional translators as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and merge Category:User ot-5 to Category:Wikipedian translators as they have the exact same scope. –Pomte 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:User ot, except Category:User ot-5, which should instead be merged to Category:Wikipedian translators. I think knowing that someone wants to learn how to speak more languages is useful, and at the very least shows interest in languages. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Does such a category belong in the babel system though? At least move it to Category:Wikipedians who wish to learn more languages or something (even though I still fail to see how such a category would be useful). VegaDark (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree with a rename. How about renaming to Category:Wikipedians who would like to learn more languages. (Due to potential for abuse/divisiveness, "wish" is probably not a good word to use in Wikipedian category names.) - jc37 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete except for OT-5, which should be merged with Category:Wikipedian translators. These categories don't help in collaboration. Horologium t-c 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as jc37 said. Repaxan 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need categories for this invented language. There will never be a Wikipedia written in ROT13, nobody will ever have a use for going through such categories to find people. Category:User rot13-1 does not currently exist, but this should set precedent for that category as well. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per ROT13, this is a Substitution cipher, and not a language at all. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Qryrgr nyy cre abz. –Cbzgr 03:06, 1 Whar 2007 (HGP)
• Delete all. As noted, this is not a language, but a cipher. There are not, nor will there ever be (I hope), Wikipedia pages written in ROT13. Klingon or Quenya, perhaps. ROT13, no. Makes a fine userbox (in line with the ones about Nadsat, Newspeak, and Bullshit), but not a category. --7Kim 09:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedian edit archive to Category:Lists of Wikipedians by number of edits - Following "Lists of..." naming convention. - jc37 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. –Pomte 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Category:Wikipedian bass guitarists, which is used to disambiguate against Category:Wikipedian double bassists. –Pomte 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Looks redundant. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with reservation. Needlessly reduplicative redundancy is a bad thing, even to the point of not being good, and should be deleted and removed. I will, however, accept this category as a supercategory containing Category:Wikipedian bass guitarists and Category:Wikipedian double bassists -- then it would serve as a the category equivalent of a disambig page. Otherwise, it must go. --7Kim 09:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to level 1 --Kbdank71 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense babel category level, only whole numbers please. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to 1-level cat as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and the user can choose which subcat of Category:User Hrkt they wish to be in. –Pomte 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per VegaDark and Pomte. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another userbox with pointless categorization. Horologium t-c 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to level 2 --Kbdank71 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense babel category level, only whole numbers please. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to 2 or 3-level cat as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The template can categorize users into level 2, as that appears to be the closest level of proficiency. –Pomte 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to level 2. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per VegaDark and Pomte. - jc37 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another userbox with pointless categorization. Horologium t-c 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to en-5 --Kbdank71 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No 6-level categories, please. Says the same exact thing for 5-level, and should be merged. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:User en-5 as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - professorial is professional, unless I'm missing something. –Pomte 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Except for different colors, means pretty much the same thing. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as author. The command of the English language exhibited by some of the so-called "professionals" sporting Category:User en-5 is sorely lacking.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia can't police user cats to determine who actually belongs in what category, and the solution isn't to continually make higher and higher babel level categories based on the personal opinion that people in the previous level don't qualify. You are also arguing that this be the only 6-level babel category allowed, what makes this so special? VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I write articles off-Wiki for teaching purposes on the nuts and bolts of English (TEFL). There'll be plenty of others around here who can make similar claims. Roger 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't explain how the 5-level category wouldn't suffice. VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The groups don't compare the same things. En-4 is about familiarity/comfort. En-5 is about social context. En-6 is about depth/breadth of knowledge.Roger 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge – I don't see how "familiarity/comfort" is different from "social context". "Professional" is clearly about depth/breadth of knowledge: compare de-5, which says "this user has a command of the German language like a professional writer". BTW, isn't the word "professorial" ridiculous? David Marjanović 22:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • En-4 applies equally to a two-year old child and Shakespeare. En-5 merely says that someone is a professional (ie lawyer, accountant, architect, doctor etc) not they are professional writers. (And yes it is.) Roger 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having En-5 is redundant enough; there is no need for more of this nonsense. What's next, En-7, "academician level"? En-8, "inventor of the English language"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think en-5 is redundant. I can write scientific articles in English, but have never lived among native speakers, the scope of my vocabulary is still a bit biased, and there are even still a few cases where I'm not quite sure whether to use the past tense or the present perfect tense. So I'm en-5 but not en-4. David Marjanović 22:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean, but if things are as you explain, then "5" in "en-5" is misleading as it suggests a higher level of command of the English language than "en-4" (since 5>4). Renaming "En-5" to "En-P" (or something like that) would solve this problem (and people would be able to put both "En-X" (where X is 1..4) and "En-P" boxes in their Babels. Of course, this is out of scope of this particular CfD.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What the other 5 mean may need to be redefined (and so, arguing whether 5 is different than 6 is pointless). But, do not create 6th level babel cats, if you please. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need to start promoting grade inflation in the Babel boxes. If people are breaking the system by overstating their proficiency in English (as the author suggests above), then we need to change the system in a basic way, not apply this kind of Band-aid. --7Kim 09:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It has no clear meaning, no proposed meaning is given anywhere (apart from the word "professorial" -- which doesn't seem to have a meaning that fits). If it's meant to say "the level of English competence found in professors of English" -- what is that? It could be anywhere from en-3 to en-5, judged by the professors I know. Paul Koning 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need for a singular category. As 7Kim notes, another method of combatting userbox inflation needs to be developed, because this is not the solution. Horologium t-c 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "not" category. Categorizing by things we don't own does not help Wikipedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The category text implies that these users are interested in Template:Sustainability and Energy Development, but that's not necessarily the case given the userbox text. –Pomte 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The ubx was modelled on the ((User Sustainable Living)) ubx. The green background and earth were meant to signify interest in Sustainable living. --DieWeibeRose 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If Rename is a permissible vote, I so vote, else my vote is Delete. My problem isn't so much with the category itself as the negative and indirect framing of the category name. If we're going to categorise Wikipedians, the meaning of the categorisation should be affirmative and direct, not based on the implications of the category. And ideally as short as possible. Category:Carless Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians who practise sustainable living would be good by me, but not the name the category currently holds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 7Kim (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007.
  • "Carless Wikipedians" would still be a "not" category. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not so sure; there are nots and nots. It seems to me a little simplistic to say "The name contains a negator (e.g. non- or -less) and the category is therefore a 'not'-category." Category:Non-redhead Wikipedians is unacceptable on its face; Category:Wikipedians who practise non-western medicine is clearly acceptable. And does either its (approximate) synonymy with Category:Wikipedians who do not enjoy sex or the negator a- render Category:Asexual Wikipedians invalid? If one becomes listed under Category:Carless Wikipedians it is because one has made a point of not owning a car, either by manually categorising oneself or by using a template that automatically does so (that is, it is an opt-in category); so the category becomes limited to those who do not drive cars for an articulable reason. A similar argument applies to non-smokers. If there is, for example, an articulable difference between "non-smokers" and "people who do not smoke" (and I feel there is -- that "non-smokers" have made a conscious choice to reject smoking whereas "people who do not smoke" may simply have never taken up the habit), then it's not quite so obvious that Category:Non-smoking Wikipedians is a not-category. I'm not arguing against avoiding not-categories, just against using that principle as a mechanical rule rather than a guideline that alerts us to cases that then must be judged on their own merits.
      • --7Kim 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We allow some "not" categories, but only ones that are beneficial to the encyclopedia. For instance, Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators. The whole reasoning behind having the "not" category rule is that not categories almost always do not help Wikipedia in any way. For instance, it does not help Wikipedia in any way to know who does not own a car, or who does not smoke. It doesn't help Wikipedia to know who consciously made the decision to not smoke. It does, on the other hand, help to know who is interested in topics that have enough articles for such people to collaborate on. If a "not" category can help Wikipedia, then I wouldn't mind it existing, and I don't think categories are mechanically nominated just because they are a not category. The whole purpose of user categories is to improve the encyclopedia, which I believe this category does not, under any name. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very well, then. If what you're saying is that utility to Wikipedia is the criterion for distinguishing a not worthy of keeping from a not worthy of deletion, then there's no further need to discuss the not question here -- lack of utility to Wikipedia is a stronger and more interesting objection that can justify deletion on its own. --7Kim 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a Non-smoking Wikipedians category. Is that a "Classic 'not' category"? I'm just trying to understand the rules. --DieWeibeRose 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is definitely a "not" category by my definition. Unfortunately when I nominated that for deletion last, it ended in no consensus for some reason. We really don't need to categorize people who don't smoke, and have been considering a renomination of that soon. VegaDark (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Delete cat - i don't own a car so i won't care if i don't own a userbox. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep Rename if possible, else Delete - I'm also having the same problem understanding what is wrong with this userbox. Exactly what policy or guideline is it violating? I also have the userboxes for non-smoker, non-drinker, drug-free, and atheist, all of which are "not" categories. If a userbox must "help Wikipedia" then how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Wikipedia? Show me the basis for this deletion request and then I may change my vote. -- HiEv 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First and foremost, please see the notification box at the top of the page. This discussion is only about the category, not the userbox. The userbox will be kept. Second of all, there is (rightly) no category associated with drug-free wikipedians (category was deleted here a while back) or for alcohol-free wikipedians. Atheist counts as a religion category, and is not considered a "not" category. The non-smoking category can be explained with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and the category should be deleted. As for "how does, for example, a userbox listing what university you attend help Wikipedia?" Users with such categories can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to the university. There is no article titled People that don't have a car or anything similar, so there is nothing for such users to collaborate on. If the intent of this category is for people who support sustainable living, they are free to join Category:Wikipedians who support Sustainable Living. VegaDark (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't ask for an explanation of the Non-smoking Wikipedians category. I merely asked, "Is that a 'Classic "not" category'?" Ditto, the Homeless Wikipedians category. As for alcohol and drug-free Wikipedians there is the Straight edge Wikipedians category. --DieWeibeRose 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I somehow missed the difference between "category" and "userbox" before. I have to agree with 7Kim above though, being a "not" category isn't a good reason to delete a category. As I mentioned earlier, "atheist Wikipedians" is a "not" category, because it lists people who do not believe in gods. However, there is utility to the "atheist" category. Still, one could ask, "What's next? Wikipedians who don't believe in Santa Claus?" You can see why that argument fails, just because some "not" categories are ridiculous does not mean there are no "not" categories that can be useful. If a more useful category for "car-free Wikipedians" could be used instead then it should be renamed to that category, if not, then delete it. -- HiEv 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. a "not" category. What's next, Category:Wikipedians who don't own hovercraft? —ptk✰fgs 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "not-category", with (imho) only tenuous ties to eco-issues. - jc37 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Following the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category I propose renaming the category as "Car-free Wikipedians" or, alternatively, "Wikipedians who support the car-free movement." This would link the category to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Wikipedia community. Car-free Wikipedians could reasonably be expected to be interested in collaborating on the Car-free movement article and some of the several related articles listed in its "See also" section. Does this solve the problem? --DieWeibeRose 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logic for creating Category:Wikipedians who support the car-free movement would be the same as the straight-edge Wikipedian category, as there are a few articles such people in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on. I don't think, however, that a rename of this category would work, since I doubt all current members of the category support the movement. You could make a new category, though. VegaDark (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those categories are all essentially the same thing as "I don't drive a car." If you want to categorized Wikipedians by transport, don't categorize them by what they don't use. Categorize them by what they do use, for example, Category:Wikipedian cyclists.—ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Okay, I'm going to create "Car-free Wikipedians" and modify the ubx to add users to that category. I'll drop the Sustainable living stuff. I've already notified, on their talk pages, all of the users using the ubx that there is an ongoing discussion about deleting the category the box is associated with. --DieWeibeRose 10:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give this discussion at least a few more days before spinning off an exact clone of the category under discussion here. "Car-free Wikipedians" means exactly the same thing as "Wikipedians who don't own automobiles". —ptk✰fgs 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Car-free Wikipedians" is definitely not "an exact clone of the category under discussion here." It follows the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category and links the category to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Wikipedia community. --DieWeibeRose 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest something that obviates the "not" objection we keep hearing? Category:Wikipedians who use public transit would do so nicely. --7Kim 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, "Car-free" Wikipedians still means Wikipedians who don't own a car, whereas "Wikipedians who support the car-free movement" is a different type of category and would work along the lines of the Straight-Edge Wikipedians cat. (I still don't think we should have categories for Wikipedians who support/oppose anything, but that is a different debate altogether). Ideally I'd like this to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement if kept. VegaDark (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The rationale for avoiding "not" categories goes back over months of discussions. Essentially the idea is: 1.) We should avoid all-inclusive categories. 2.) 2 categories covering the same topic (differing in one is positive and the other negative) would together be essentially "all-inclusive". 3.) Therefore one of the two should be deleted. 4.) typically the "negative" (also known as the "not"-based category) should be deleted, since the positive is more likely to be useful for positive collaboration (whether direct or indirect), and the negative form is more likely to be divisive or inflammatory. - Therefore, since we have Category:Wikipedians who drive cars and Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles, one of them should be deleted, and in this case, it's clearly the negative form. It doesn't matter if we call it "Car-free", or whatever, it's still the negative form, or in other words, a "not" category, and so it should be deleted. I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the "a non-'not' category exists" argument is that not everyone uses the category if it applies to them. So, just because somebody doesn't use the "I drive a car" category doesn't mean that they don't drive a car. "I do" means you do, "I don't" means you don't, having neither could mean either. Thus the existence of an "I do X" category does not by itself obviate the utility of an "I avoid X" category. -- HiEv 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is worth exactly what you all paid for it, but I would suggest that the not-ness of a category should not be viewed as cause for deletion in and of itself, but as a flag that alerts us that other reasons for deletion may exist. Looking back over history, it seems to me that categories labelled as nots, when deleted, have always had other arguments against them -- lack of Wiki-utility, redundancy, divisiveness, silliness, irrelevance, overly broad scope, &c. In editing, the use of passive voice is not itself bad, but extensive use of passive voice serves as a good predictor for the presence of weasel words, unsourced assertions, and POV problems. So too with category management -- a negatively framed category title or definition is not itself bad, but serves as a good predictor of a valid cause for deletion. --7Kim 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - The category is empty--68.42.141.76 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firstly, if it is empty I don't know why- I am in it! (or at least display the image) Secondly, the majority of the population do own cars, so much so that not-owning one has become a source of comment, and thus earns a category. Larklight 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is empty because the creator created a new category, and modified the associated userbox template to place users in the other category instead. You will find yourself under Category:Car-free Wikipedians now. --7Kim 13:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I understand no. No objections, I see that I didn't really understand. Larklight 11:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it's been replaced--I think it was useful: it indicates a certain attitude towards life and a likely interest in a range of topics. DGG 22:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this results in delete, which it looks like it will, I will consider Category:Car-free Wikipedians to be speedy deletable as meaning the same exact thing (While the category description says otherwise, the name of the category needs to reflect that, which it doesn't). The first thing people will think when they see "Car-Free" will be people that do not have a car, not people who support the car free movement. If you want to have that category, which is fine by me, please rename it to what I said would be acceptable, Category:Wikipedians who support the car-free movement or Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement. Since "Car-free Wikipedians" can reasonably be assumed to mean Wikipedians who don't own a car (despite the description), I think it would be a valid G4 speedy deletion as "substatially identical" to this category. Once again, I encourage you to create a category whose name does not reflect the reason why this category is about to be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I strongly disagree that Category:Car-free Wikipedians means "the same exact thing" as Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars. I came to agree with the arguments that the latter category should be deleted but I do not agree that your assumptions about what people will think about Category:Car-free Wikipedians are grounds for negating what is indicated in the category description. Even assuming for the sake of argument only, that the two category names mean the same thing, that is not simply not one of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Since Category:Car-free Wikipedians was created days before Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars was deleted then criterion G4 does not apply--it is patently not "A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted." At a minimum, a "reasonable doubt exists" and, therefore, any discussion of deleting Category:Car-free Wikipedians should not take place using the speedy delete method. --DieWeisseRose 08:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment - In the many Wikipedia discussions I've been in, or even just quietly lurked as a reader, I've often encountered the accusation of WikiLawyering, but typically it's just one person accusing another of quoting proper process. Thank you for giving us a great example of true WikiLawyering. And yes, that's fallacious reasoning, and the new cat will be listed above for speedy deletion, if appropriate, such as if this discussion results in deletion. - jc37 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mis-use of the term - "Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline ... will be accused of WikiLawyering. In these cases, it may make sense to instead assume good faith and engage in the discussion productively rather than tarring those editors with the WikiLawyering brush." --DieWeisseRose 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, I've often seen that happen. It just doesn't happen to be true in this case. Or more directly: Claiming that: "Since Category:Car-free Wikipedians was created days before Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars was deleted then criterion G4 does not apply..." - is quite clearly WikiLawyering (points 2, 3, and 4 of that page), since the category was created as a result of this currently ongoing deletion discussion. - jc37 07:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it was created as a result of this discussion but before any consensus had emerged to delete the "don't own" category and because I agreed with some of the criticisms of that category. It was a good faith effort to solve the problem and not an attempt to Wikilawyer. I take your continued insistence on applying that "pejorative term" here as a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. --DieWeisseRose 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not how I was reading your actions (especially based on your comments throughout this discussion). But besides that, in no way should my comments be construed as a personal attack in any way. And I was responding to your comment to clarify, not "continued insistance". In any case, if this truly is a good faith effort to find Consensus, I applaud your attempt, and wish you well. - jc37 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must concur with DieWeisseRose on this -- there is a significant and meaningful difference in the label-pair "Car-free ..." and ".. who do not drive cars", exactly parallel to the label-pairs ("non-smoking ..." / "... who do not smoke"), ("vegan ..." / "... who do not eat animal products"), ("substance-free ..." and "... who do not use intoxicating substances"), and ("childless ..." / "... who do not have children"). In each of these cases, the first alternative is an affirmative statement about the member that that relates (usually) to a conscious choice about lifestyle; and the second is a simple "not category" that clearly serves no particular purpose, as its embrace is overly inclusive. There may be other, stronger, arguments for deleting Category:Car-free Wikipedians (for example, it seems to be low on Wiki-utility), but the argument from synonymy with Category:Wikipedians who do not own cars is in my opinion an empty one. If we're going to delete something, let's make sure we're doing it for good strong reasons. Especially if a particular category page uses small amounts of Wikipedia resources (much less than the discussion over deleting this one is taking up!) and is otherwise not doing any particular harm. --7Kim 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement as its category makes this a notable topic to be interested in, and the amount of discussion here implies that these users will exert the same effort in improving articles about the car-free movement. –Pomte 06:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars has been deleted. I placed the text below on Category_talk:Car-free_Wikipedians and on VegaDark's Talk page:

Administrator VegaDark has already expressed her/his determination to speedy delete this category. Category:Car-free Wikipedians is not a clone of Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars. "Car-free Wikipedians" is not a "not-category" but rather about an affirmatiion of support for or adherence to the Car-free movement. In this, it follows the logic of the Straight edge Wikipedians category. The category links users to the Car-free movement article and to a movement that exists external to the Wikipedia community. Car-free Wikipedians could reasonably be expected to be interested in collaborating on the Car-free movement article and some of the several related articles listed in its "See also" section. None of this was true of the now deleted Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars.

Wikipedia's "speedy deletion" policy states that, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." There is reasonable doubt about whether the two categories in questions are substantially the same. Also, since Category:Car-free Wikipedians was created days before Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars was deleted then criterion G4 does not apply--it is patently not "A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted." Furthermore, as the creator of both categories, I can state unequivocally that Category:Car-free Wikipedians was created as a good faith effort to address valid concerns about Category:Wikipedians who don't own cars, which I never voted to keep. Reasonable doubts exist, therefore, any discussion of deleting Category:Car-free Wikipedians--if such a discussion takes place at all--should not take place using the speedy delete method. --DieWeisseRose 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--DieWeisseRose 09:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ok, after going therough related articles, categories, and reference links, what I've essentially found are either remote villages which prefer donkey travel, islands, and cycling paths and locations. Very little is about the eco-concerns, and more about supporting cycling. That said, there are several organisations interested in this, and obviously Wikipedians interested in this, so some sort of Wikipedian category related to this issue would seem appropriate as a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians by political issue. It definitely needs a rename ("carfree" is one such name), and an effort needs to be made to keep this from duplicating Category:Wikipedian cyclists. - jc37 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename - Considering the category has been speedy deleted and endorsed at deletion review, rename is the only real viable close in this situation, so I will make an exception to my general rule of not closing my own nominations in this case. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category. Does anyone not support the development of renewable energy? Might as well have a category for people who support improved health care, improved human rights, etc. Also, "Renewable Energy" should not be capitalized, so at least needs a rename. I'd also support a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy as nom. VegaDark (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy as a large topic of interest. –Pomte 00:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy - says essentially the same thing, while being potentiallly less divisive. - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy - more appropriate and a large topic with potential to interest many. Camaron1 | Chris 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Now that I think of it, Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy topics might be a slightly better name. Thoughts? VegaDark (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in renewable energy. Wikipedians interested in ... seems to be a more well-established convention than Wikipedians who support ..., preferable due to divisiveness issues, and safe from the vagueness surrounding the meaning of "support". --7Kim 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, if this category was "useless" there would not be 459 Wikipedians who are a member of this category and support the development of renewable energy. There are forces which are AGAINST the development of renewable energy; these people are mostly stakeholders in the established fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas, etc.) industry which work against government funding of renewable energy research in universities. By being a member of this category, one explicitly supports the funding of university and government research programs to develop the necessary scientific research to create practical renewable energy products on the market. I think that changing this category's name to "...interested in Renewable Energy" changes the original meaning of this category, from one of advocacy to one of simple "interest". Thanks. Serouj 18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the idea. User categories should facilitate collaboration, not advocacy. —ptk✰fgs 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a point, but as an earlier user mentioned, who does NOT support the development of renewable energy? (It's only 0.0001% of the population who's got their hands on the fossil fuel industry.) Therefore, having this section does facilitate collaboration, since 99.9999% of our users would support the development of renewable energy since it is in their own interest. So if this topic doesn't cause division, then why remove it? (It takes up only like 10 kilobytes of memory in Wikipedia's database, and therefore the value it brings outnumbers it cost.) Serouj 04:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was due to lack of input from the WikiProject, the fact this is several days overdue for a close, and the fact a result of "no consensus" will result in keeping two identical categories, I am closing this as merge to Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants. If the Wikiproject has a consensus to switch to the "members" version in the future, they are free to do so. VegaDark (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:WikiProject Irish Music members, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment shouldn't this be a user cats for discussion? Carlossuarez46 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved from Categories for discussion May 22. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask WikiProject to decide on one, then speedy merge - This goes back to the members vs. participants debate. The best way to deal with this is ask the WikiProject which they prefer. VegaDark (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to "...participants". (Yes, ask the WikiProject, but, I still prefer that "members" be removed.) - jc37 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I left a note at the WikiProject talk page a few days ago and there has been no response. The project looks rather inactive, with the most recent edit to that talk page before mine being in December. That being said, it looks like we will have to decide for them, in which case I agree with Jc37 that we should use the "Participants" version. VegaDark (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University Belfast

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To differentiate Queen's University Belfast from Queen's University in Canada. Cordless Larry 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Queen.27s_University. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename/speedy rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per nom. –Pomte 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" varies for every person on Wikipedia, so as is, this category is essentially useless for collaborative purposes. A way to salvage it would be to make it in to a parent category and change the name to Category:Wikipedians by local history interest, and have subcategories for each city. Unfortunately, we we would have to ask everyone in the category which city's local history they are interested in to determine this, so I don't know if this is salvagable. As is, this category is no more useful than if someone just wrote they were interested in local history on their userpage. "Local History" shouldn't be capitalized, so this at minimum needs a rename.

• Neutral pending more discussion, but leaning towards delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - At first I was thinking that this could be kept if the inclusion criteria involved local culture and society in general as sociological items. However, it's clear from the category introduction that this is not the case. This merely duplicates every "Wikipedian by location" category into one sprawling category which is potentially all-inclusive. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This just isn't useful unless it provides a means for finding Wikipedians interested in the history of some particular locality. Which is an interesting idea, but I don't see the possibility of it without building and filling a perfectly gargantuan category tree. Even then, how local one can go without passing the notability horizon is not an argument I care to be present for. --7Kim 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category became more or less obsolete when Wikipedia:Userbox migration came along. I don't think this category was useful at any point time, but It certainly isn't useful now. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not particularly useful any more. The "war" is over, nothing more to end. Picaroon (Talk) 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Some may consider Wikipedia:Userbox migration to be a continuation of the "boxwar". I'm going to be semi-cliche and suggest that if this is deleted, so too should all Wikipedian by Wikipedia issue categories, else it should not be deleted. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 10:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not something Wikipedia needs a category for. I'm sure everyone supports the revival of various things, but having categories for such things will not improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at least rename to "Wikipedians who listen to..." - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete at author's request. NoSeptember 11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"The wikipedians who have joined User:Alphablast/The emerald society". Sorry, we don't need categories for unofficial userspace groups. Similar categories have been deleted many times in the past. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Premature. If this "group" survives in Wikipedia: space, then such a category might be useful. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Mike Selinker 11:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category. Mass deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify, since this specific one hasn't been deleted before. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Added Category:User no-0, which also needs deletion. VegaDark (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - Speedily renaming to Category:Wikipedian autograph pages per proper caps. - jc37 10:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not aid collaboration in any way. At all. Also, wasn't something like this deleted before? – Gurch 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think all these autograph pages should be deleted. They are all a waste of space and people's time. However, until that happens, a category to group them all might not be a bad idea (in order to make it easier for a group MfD). VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books. A•N•N•A hi! 00:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The category helps autograph pages to become shorter in that they don't need to include a list of autograph pages anymore. A•N•N•A hi! 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They never needed to in the first place. It's only been part of autograph pages because some people have chosen to do that to further their inappropriate use of Wikipedia socialization. Metros 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia is not your high school yearbook. Sean William 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, utterly and completely useless, unless this is some sort of holding pen so we can delete them all at once later. Why on earth would we categorize unencyclopedic user subpages? --tjstrf talk 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I suppose that I could note that User:Jimbo Wales signs such pages, and supports their use, but instead I think I'll simply point out that this discussion is about the category, not whether you support having such pages on Wikipedia. Oh, and keep because: If we've got 'em, then grouping 'em as a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians by user page would seem to make sense. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedian autograph pages. This serves as a useful tracking category because the autograph pages in it are often discussed. –Pomte 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Sean William. We don't need to go as far as adding on a category to these useless subpages. I imagine the only use for it (besides tracking them) would be for these users to find random users' pages to sign (as they often seem to do). Tim Q. Wells 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a category that shouldn't contain anything anyway. —ptk✰fgs 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No possible collaborative use; WP:NOT a webhost or social networking site. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is essentially a NOT category (and don't come down here saying this helps collaboration on feminism).--WaltCip 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "This lists Wikipedians who are against female haircutting" - Sorry, we don't need a category for this. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a major issue in some countries of the world, as well as some religious sects/groups/whatever. However, I can't tell if this is the intent of the category, or just a category of those who find long hair on women attractive, and are opposed to it being cut. Keep if the former is true, else Delete if the latter is true. - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that were the case (which there is no indication of either way), this category would still need a rename, so deletion looks like the best option. VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per previous consensus on admins per country categories. Picaroon (Talk) 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one must have slipped through the cracks of the Administrators by country UCFD a while back. In either case, I think that established enough precedent for this to be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should have been deleted with the others. Doesn't help build the encyclopedia, we don't need to subcategorise admins by nationality. WjBscribe 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename - jc37 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Audio file editors to Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files - added Wikipedians and re-arrange order. - jc37 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use gedit (per [[Gedit|article note]). - jc37 10:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Gedit for proper capitalisation.

• Rename As nominator — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It does not appear to help the project in any way. --Bduke 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A potential to collaborate on a single article is not worth having a category. Rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Gedit - jc37 10:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use gEdit -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If you go to the article, it appears as if "gedit" is the proper capitalization (lowercase G and no capital E) so if renamed, needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use gedit. VegaDark (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be true, does not help Wikipedia in any way. Categories like these are explicitly mentioned in the essay on what categories not to make. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Didn't know it was frowned upon. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-useful category. *Cremepuff222* 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Do not rename the PS2 or PS3 categories. Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 1 games. - The article lists several synonyms, including: PSone, PSOne, PS one, or PS1. Simply chose "1" to match 2 and 3. - jc37 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting these to discuss whether "Sony" should be used, and about how (if wanted) to disambiguate between general PlayStation users and those who use the PlayStation (and the PSone). - jc37 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games

• Neutral - hoping for more discussion. - jc37 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just PlayStation, please. I work with Sony guys, and even they don't call it the PlayStation.--Mike Selinker 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I could get behind changing the PlayStation category to "Wikipedians who play PSone games", since it has definitely been overwritten in users' minds.--Mike Selinker 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Include Sony, without it we have a sentence containing "play play", which is obnoxious. --tjstrf talk 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no need to disambiguate for PlayStation in general (broad/unnecessary overlap; subcats do the job), nor for an empty Category:Wikipedians by PlayStation (overcategorization for only 3 subcats). –Pomte 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with this. I think a better idea for this would be to create Category:Wikipedians by console game (since many games are multi-platform, as you mention in an above nom) and change the console categories to Category:Wikipedians interested in Nintendo topics or Category:Wikipedians interested in PlayStation topics. That's another nom, however. For now, I think we should go with the article names, which means rename per MS. VegaDark (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 19:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't possibly categorize all past accounts that have been used for vandalism. Attempting to maintain such a category would be futile. This is nonsense. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Impossibly large scope, and doesn't sound right besides — we don't want there to be accounts for vandalism. Serpent's Choice 08:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Blake3522 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete → WP:SNOW ;-) There is no use for this cat. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See User:HBC AIV helperbot/Special IPs. We may need more information about this one. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If a user is in that category and they are posted to AIV, the bot will mention that the user is in the category. Should have no effect whatsoever on this debate. ^(H) 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, deny recognition. —ptk✰fgs 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, immense scope! Don't need it. *Cremepuff222* 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - may encourage users to vandalise a page, and per above comments. –Sebi ~ 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User category that added people to a now deleted group. Not useful to Wikipedia at all. Once again, I'll say that stuff like this should be speedyable. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete → per nom ;-) «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vanity category, among other reasons. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. *Cremepuff222* 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request below. VegaDark (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help Wikipedia in any way I can think of. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category fits me to a glove, but it doesn't do wikipedia any good. --Bduke 08:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete → No, I cannot figure how this category can help. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as creator: I have since read Wikipedia:Userboxes and have learned that userboxes should not by default create categories. Mea culpa --Slashme 07:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want a category like this for every game show or talk show ever made? I don't see this being any more useful than its parent category, Category:Wikipedians who like Jeopardy!. I suppose it's possible such people saw some behind-the-scenes stuff, but adding any info they got from first-hand experience to articles would qualify as original research. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge → It's not necessary that somebody who were in Jeopardy! studio audience still likes it, but we can assume it. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Except perhaps The Price Is Right or Let's make a deal, being in the audience of a game show is about as notable as attending any performance/concert. As for the rename suggestion, being in the audience doesn't necessarily mean that they like the game show. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is fine by me. VegaDark (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use Google Talk - jc37 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the correctly-named Category:Wikipedians who use Google Talk. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge/speedy upmerge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge. –Pomte 08:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge → NCCAT, not controversial. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep as semaphore to developers, I suppose? : ) - jc37 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need one of these for all 10,000 bug reports on BugZilla. Will become obsolete once it is fixed, anyway, and this category won't provide any benefit until then. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As the acknowledged impetus for this category, I'll be sorry to see it go. This isn't just any ol' bug, but probably one of the biggest current sources of frustration for those of us that spend significant time battling Wikipedia vandalism. This little bit of wiki-civil disobedience was meant to simply inform other users about this issue (I bet 98% of regular editors still don't know about this bug) and encourage our noble developers on their pathway towards a solution. At least it managed to pick up a little bit of attention.[1] In any case, I'm sure this cat will be deleted, and for perfectly valid reasons...but I won't pretend to like it! Sigh. — Scientizzle 08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until bug is fixed. Scientizzle is right that this isn't "any ol' bug". Because of this bug, warning IP users for vandalism serves virtually no purpose since most IP users are not getting the messages. The problem is that most users on Wikipedia still don't know that this bug is preventing them from being able to communicate with IPs. This category was created to try to "get the word out" that there is a problem with this and that most IPs are not receiving messages they sent. I understand if the category is deleted but that doesn't mean that I will try other ways to inform people. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fully aware of the bug and its effects. I don't see how increasing people's awareness of it any more will make the bug get fixed any faster. Every single Wikipedian could be in this category and I doubt it would make a difference, I'm sure the developers are working on it and the amount of people in this category isn't going to affect their speed. I also don't like the precedent this sets- Allowing a category like this for all bug reports on BugZilla (or at least all unsolved ones). Yes, this is more severe than most, but setting the threshhold for what is category-worthy or not is subjective. I also really don't like the temporary nature of this. I don't like the idea of any Wikipedian category that is expected to be obsolete within a few weeks or a couple months at most. VegaDark (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:IAR. The bug report links to this user category to express the users' attitude. It'd look ridiculous when they come here to see it deleted. –Pomte 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, nobody looking at the bug report will work any faster because they see this category nor will they find it ridiculous if the category is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonatan (talk • contribs)

• Delete - ridiculous category, serves no purpose and doesn't help anybody. Yonatan ^talk 14:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After reading the comments above, I wonder if I should mention that the userbox won't be deleted due to this discussion... - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Worthy category until Bug ID 9213 is resolved, then should be deleted forthwith (but I'm sure even the creator would agree with me on that one). Orderinchaos 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Trying alternative ways to get problems fixed to make this project better is ok in my book. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I perfectly understand and support the reasons for setting up this category. (And yes, I had forgotten about the bug again... and I'm currently trying to contact an IP, so I'm glad about the reminder.) And if it should help in the least to indicate to the developers that this is seen as a priority by many Wikipedians--all the better. I'm sure they have a lot to do, so it's a good idea to indicate the priorities that current users request. (And no, I don't care whether a category is set up for a day or a century. If it's useful when it's there and doesn't cause too much trouble to set it up and delete it--what's the problem?) Nonetheless, I also have to agree with the argument that this would set a precedent. And we'd soon have so many categories that the purpose (pointing out a major issue) would be made impossible to reach once the word spreads and users rally friends and sock puppets to send their favorite bug category to the top of the charts... For this reason, I hope this discussion will drag on a bit more, raise a lot of awareness... and end with the deletion of the category. Mission accomplished. --Ibn Battuta 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This bug is pretty bad. (I'd support a cat for maybe bugzilla:57 too, but not the majority of bugs there.) I agree that this should be deleted if and when the bug is fixed, but the devs don't seem sure what's causing it. And awareness of the bug is good to avoid biting anons too. (Disclosure: I think it was me who reported the bug, but I'm not sure (/me checks: yes, it was me).) I'd add myself to the cat if I were the sort of user who used user cats. (Note that there is a method of 'voting' for a bug on Bugzilla, where you add your email address as a 'vote'; I'm not sure if the devs pay attention to it.) --ais523 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I am aware that deleting a user cat has no effect on the presence or absence of an associated userbox. --ais523 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as empty by User:Anthony Appleyard. (And kind of hard to merge an empty category : ) - jc37 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the former was a subcat of the latter. As these are redundant, they should be merged one into the other.

• Merge as nom. bibliomaniac15 04:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/speedy merge to Category:Wikipedians with over 5,000 edits as the other cats use the comma. Looks uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge → For now, for NCCAT, merge to the 5,000 one. However, I prefer the one without the comma as it's international. But I think that if somebody want to change the convention, he/she should make a group nom (I will probably do one of this days ;-) ). «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. How about if this one is withdrawn, and we just proceed with the group nomination? - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Both As per a recent mass-merger of edit-counting templates these two categories and all other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits should be migrated to Category:Wikipedians by edit count and its existing subcategories. Adam McCormick 01:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians with more than 5000 edits. We don't have the "over" construction.--Mike Selinker 11:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Mike Selinker 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Zoo Tycoon to Category:Wikipedians who play Zoo Tycoon. --Mike Selinker 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, redundant. Picaroon (Talk) 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with the properly named Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/speedy merge as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge as redundant. bibliomaniac15 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete - Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use ZX Spectrum computers. (The article suggests it's a personal computer rather than a video game console.) - jc37 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This category describes those who consider themselves to be fans of the Sinclair ZX Spectrum computer" - Wha? This is nonsense. No indication it is even a user category, so at minimum needs a rename, but even then this would have no benefit to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a nonsense category, its not helping the encyclopedia in any way. — The Sunshine Man 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and possibly rename by prepending "Wikipedian"): as the description indicates, it's a badge category by which those involved in the ZX Spectrum pages identify one another, and as such it's no more "nonsensical" or unhelpful than, say, Category:Wikipedians_in_the_United_Kingdom... Korax1214 13:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible move (rename) to Wikipedians who play ZX Spectrum, as per Wikipedians by video game console below. Korax1214 13:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, albeit possibly renamed to make it clearer (although I like "Spec-chum") --Zagrebo 14:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use ZX Spectrum computers per Category:Wikipedians by personal computer. - jc37 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson as it became empty. VegaDark (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Wikipedians born before 1992 were deleted at CfD. High school year categories were recently merged here. The children's privacy issue had no consensus. –Pomte 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There was also another, later CfD that resulted in no consensus, and then an IAR deletion endorsed in DRV. Since it's not clear which precedent should apply, please don't appeal to other discussions. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am going to appeal to other discussions, specifically the no consensus one. I'd like to say that we should go two months before we reconsider the issue, in nominations like this.--Mike Selinker 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "No consensus" means what it says: that the discussion did not result in a consensus of Wikipedians. And as such, typically means that a re-nomination is fine (presuming that it's not done disruptively). AFAIK, all discussions regarding this topic so far either resulted in Deletion or No consensus. I also note that there was also an arbcom case about such things. See especially: current practice and counseling (and really that whole page). - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Though I think it's fine to have the middle and high school categories, even Wikipedia has its limits.--WaltCip 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What's next, Wikipedian preschoolers? VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category, does not help to categorize things we "no longer" do, and does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Name Change then. "Wikipedians who are in support of Switching from OSX" or "Wikipedians who are in support of Switching to Windows."--Zeeboid 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no potential to improve collaboration. Bfp _(talk) 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No anti-categories.--Mike Selinker 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I am leaning towards deletion for other reasons, I wonder how different this is than any category which describes something that a Wikipedian did or experienced in the past. Especially the previous location categories. If this is deleted, we should probably revisit that discussion. - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No need to delete, once its change to a "Pro" category. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.134.160 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not" category, does not help to categorize things we hate, and all "hate" categories have been deleted previously (or speedy deleted). VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hate mashed potatoes. How would I collaborate on something that I hate?--WaltCip 13:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we change it to something like "Users who believe MLA format is inefficient" or "Users who prefer other bibliography formats over MLA format"? We can rename the category such that it clarifies that the members prefer other styles, or at least bibliography formats, over MLA. (I think the MLA paper format is ugly, but I absolutely hate the bibliography format because so many simpler ones exist.) Thomas Levine 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Collaborate by what you appreciate, not what you don't.--Mike Selinker 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If renamed, this becomes a classic example of a "not" category: Wikipedians who do not like... - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Mike Selinker 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who support Aberdeen F.C. to Category:Wikipedian Aberdeen F.C. fans
• Category:Wikipedians that support S.L Benfica to Category:Wikipedian S.L. Benfica fans
• Category:Wikipedian Egypt fans to Category:Wikipedian Egypt national football team fans
• Category:Wikipedians that support Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense to Category:Wikipedian Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense fans
• Category:Wikipedians that support Paris Saint-Germain to Category:Wikipedian Paris Saint-Germain FC fans
• Category:Wikipedians who support Queens Park Rangers to Category:Wikipedian Queens Park Rangers F.C. fans
• Category:South Melbourne FC fans to Category:Wikipedian South Melbourne FC fans
• Category:Wikipedians that support São Paulo FC to Category:Wikipedian São Paulo FC fans

and on a similar note:

• Category:Wikipedians who are Arena football League fans to Category:Wikipedian Arena Football League fans

More football fans. I’m certain about all of them except the Egypt one. I can’t tell if the Pharaohs alluded to in the userbox is the national team, or what.--Mike Selinker 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Egypt national football team says Pharaohs is a nickname. Is it good form for some articles to say FC and others to say F.C.? –Pomte 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're stuck with that, as the mainspace articles have this difference as well. I amended the Egypt one, and added an AFL one.--Mike Selinker 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm. In that case a discussion needs to take place about making the articles uniform. Until then, I suppose we can settle for having the categories as you propose, but eventually the categories need to become uniform as well. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It becomes a problem of fact, not of categorization. Some countries use the periods and some don't. We shouldn't attempt to standardize them in that case.--Mike Selinker 07:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as nominated except the Egypt one (category name should match article name). Also there needs to be a standard F.C./FC as Pomte points out. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, i realised the mistake i made as soon as i created the South Melbourne category, coulnd't be bothered/didn't know how to change it, figured someone would get round to it eventually lol. Blackmissionary 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I vaguely recall one of MS's past group nominations at WP:CFD where there was a discussion and link confirming either F.C. or FC, but I don't recall much else. If someone can find the link, or even just more more information, that would be welcome : ) - jc37 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename/Merge - jc37 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Swimming

Category:Swimmer wikipedians[edit]

Speedy Rename Category:Swimmer wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian swimmers - caps and reverse order. - jc37 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synchronized swimmer wikipedians[edit]

Speedy Rename Category:Synchronized swimmer wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian synchronized swimmers - caps and reverse order. - jc37 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water polo player wikipedians[edit]

Speedy Rename Category:Water polo player wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who play water polo - caps and re-arrange order. - jc37 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diver wikipedians[edit]

Speedy Rename Category:Diver wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian divers - caps and reverse order. - jc37 08:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedian musicians to Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument subcategories/depopulate. - With the exception of the composers subcat, these are effectively the same category. - jc37 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - as nominator. - jc37 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete this, since there is no way to merge this without asking every person what instrument they play. Merging then depopulating would be a nonsensical extra step. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The scope laid out at the top of the category is too broad to be useful. –Pomte 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food - Per the UCFD discussion below, renominating this for deletion. - jc37 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Millions of people "like" spicy food, a category is not helpful as just because someone likes a food does not mean they would be more capable or likely to collaborate on articles relating to that food. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. Picaroon (Talk) 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Conservapedian to Category:Wikipedians who use Conservapedia - added Wikipedians. - jc37 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. Picaroon (Talk) 02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedists interested in researching history to Category:Wikipedians interested in researching history - ists to ians. - jc37 15:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename per nom. PeaceNT 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename feel free to close. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in general knowledge - Potentially all-inclusive category. - jc37 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Facilitates collaboration on articles such as stuff and things! ...but we should delete it anyway. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most readers are general knowledgians; many Wikipedians may not be general knowledgians because they might have signed up to only edit a certain type of article. Still, I don't understand why people are using this generic category to represent themselves, as it's like being in the empty Category:Wikipedians by interest. –Pomte 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Membership is potentially everyone who uses Wikipedia. Korax1214 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename all except relisting the PlayStation ones. (Ugh @ the grammar : ) - jc37 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Dreamcast to Category:Wikipedians who play Dreamcast games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis to Category:Wikipedians who play Sega Genesis/Mega Drive games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 2 games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games to Category:Wikipedians who play PlayStation 3 games
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox to Category:Wikipedians who play Xbox games

• Rename all - as nominator. Standardising names. - jc37 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Wikipedians interested in x games to convey a more collaborative intention. Rename as nominated if no consensus for this, except add "Microsoft" in the last one, as you kept the developer in each of the previous ones. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, except get rid of the manufacturers' names (Sega, Sony, and do not add "Microsoft"), except maybe in the case of Mega Drive/Genesis since "Genesis" needs disambiguation. Category names can be shortened if the meaning is clear, so the bottom of userpages are not cluttered with unnecessary text. The verb "play" does not express a support/favor like "like", so it's non-divisive. The userboxes, on the other hand, say "prefers over" and so are divisive by nature. –Pomte 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Sega and Nintendo and Xbox as nominated, do not rename PlayStation 2 and 3, rename PlayStation to PlayStation games (no Sony). I definitely refer to a Dreamcast as a Dreamcast, but never do I refer to my PlayStations as PlayStations, nor an Xbox as a Xbox.--Mike Selinker 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The first PlayStation was often referred to as the PlayStation. (Possibly due to legal issues, and the commercials thus creating a meme of sorts.) I've never seen the Xbox called the Xbox anywhere. It's usually just a note "in addition". I alpha-sorted the Sega names (Genesis first), which allows us to drop the second Sega reference in the category name. However, considering that the article names it the Mega Drive/Genesis, perhaps we should just create Category:Sega Genesis as a cat redirect, and shorten the name even further. - jc37 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I suppose that's true, but I would be surprised if anyone who owns a PlayStation calls it that. The Sega Genesis is a continental issue: No one in Europe knows it as a Genesis, and no one in America knows it as a Mega Drive. I certainly don't think the clunky category title hurts here, given that.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Wikipedians by video game - jc37 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play massively multiplayer online games to Category:Wikipedians by massively multiplayer online game, and depopulate (currently 2 members). As an alternative, UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians by video game. - jc37 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and depopulate - as nominator. - jc37 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- the new name will make it more clear that it's meant as a category of categories. I'm not sure, though, what we should do if there are people who want to be in the main level of this category because they play multiple MMOs... other than ask them what other dimension they live in where there's time for more than one. Pinball22 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and depopulate. If they play more than one, they can go in to the subcategory for each game they play. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wikipedians by video game, and depopulate. I don't think it's necessary to have the umbrella here.--Mike Selinker 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, now that I think about it, this would be a better idea. No need to differentiate between an MMORPG and any other computer game. VegaDark (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - jc37 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Minesweeper - Since this has been included with every windows operating system, it duplicates Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. - jc37 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subcategorize - No, it's a subcategory. A Wikipedian may use Windows but not play Minesweeper.--WaltCip 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't agree that everyone who has used Windows has played this game, but it is still close to all-inclusive, and having a category would only support collaboration on a single article, which is not useful. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The issue shouldn't be about overlap with another category, because this one has a completely different sense than Category:Wikipedians who use Windows. This is an insult to the game, which predates Windows. While it may be true that most Windows users have played the game, those who have only played it a handful of times without analyzing the strategy are probably not adding themselves to this category, unless they're poseurs, in which case we can't stop them because there's no proof about the matter and it's not important anyway. The reason that this category should be deleted is it's too specific in scope in relation to the number of Wikipedia articles on the subject. –Pomte 21:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Owning is not the same as playing, and thus it isn't any different than any other video game category.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play Terraworld - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terraworld Online, the associated category should go too. - jc37 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This should be a speedy criteria. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, it should. –Pomte 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep - jc37 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as speaking Quenya or Sindarin at a professional level. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem useful. Jon Harald Søby 12:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The professors et al. who worked on the LOTR film rather obviously speak the elvish languages at a professional level. And there are professors at universities in the UK, The US, Europe, and elsewhere who do as well. - jc37 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reliable sources on the article indicating this. Just because someone had people say things in elvish in the movie does not mean they were fluent in it. They probably just looked up how to say the particular lines that were needed, I doubt someone went to the effort to learn an entire fictional lanugage for the few lines in LOTR. VegaDark 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When noting the film series, I was talking about those involved in the production behind-the-scenes, not the actors themselves (though one of the professionals did comment that Liv Tyler seemed a natural with the language). - jc37 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I was talking about behind-the-scenes people as well in my reply. I doubt they learned the entire language just to write the few lines in the movie properly. VegaDark 23:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the DVD, they were people who already had such knowledge, and were tapped to help due to that. I'll try to find specific names, if you wish. - jc37 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Jc37. Vashti 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's not enough vocabulary that's been established as canon to really form a 'professional level', in my opinion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Tolkien's Lhammas (essentially the proto-elvish dictionaries) was published in book 5 of the History of Middle-earth series. As for completeness, there is enough of a vocabulary that there was an elvish wikipedia created (It didn't have enough contributors, and I believe was closed - I'll have to find the wikimedia link.) And here's a link to a scholarship site that may also be helpful: [2]. - jc37 07:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm convinced. Very good information. Definitely WP:N and WP:V.--WaltCip 10:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by jc37's evidence that there exists such people who have spoken the languages at a professional level. Doesn't matter whether m/any of them are Wikipedians. –Pomte 21:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this seems to me to speak to the whole KM-triggered kerfuffle over such categories/userboxes in the first place. Either we have only a few specifically useful categories (and language skill is useful, for example, in determining translation abilities, etc....), or else we have a whole slew of categories that many may find pointless & frivolous but nonetheless are a matter of personal expression. Given that the latter has been the consensus, I see no reason to delete this, even if it is merely the wishful thinking of LOTR fans. Eusebeus 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author request below. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These are all the user Vandal Boxes on Wikipedia, tagged with {(User Vandal Box))" - I don't see why this needs a category. Seems to almost encourage vandalism. (I know this category doesn't actually categorize users, but it does categorize user pages, so I figured it was in the grey area between this and CFD). VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think we need to categorize pages that transclude a certain non-userbox template. Use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User Vandal Box instead. The template also looks like it's made of WP:BEANS. –Pomte 02:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just delete it, was basically pointless to create. --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to:

• Category:Wikipedian vocalists-1
• Category:Wikipedian vocalists-2
• Category:Wikipedian vocalists-3
• Category:Wikipedian vocalists-4

The consensus was that the number breakdown was acceptable, but not the babel-abbreviated naming. - jc37 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:User vocals-1
• Category:User vocals-2
• Category:User vocals-3
• Category:User vocals-4

The "User x" babel format is meant for languages, not skills in general. Further, we don't need to have categories for different proficiencies of this.

• Delete all, or merge all to a suitable user category outside the babel naming conventions if no consensus to delete, as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why the WP:BABEL format can't be extended to other areas of varying expertise. If people actually navigate through these categories, it'd definitely be useful to distinguish between amateurs and professionals. But it is unclear whether anyone who picks up a microphone at a karaoke or records themselves singing on YouTube is a singer. Delete all except vocals-4 and rename that to Category:Wikipedian professional singers. –Pomte 01:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While I agree that only the language categories should have the "user-#" naming convention, I disagree with the idea that the babel system of numbers (or any other progressing sequence) can't be used for categories other than babel cats. If it aids in navigation, if it aids in clarity and precision, then they should be "just fine". - jc37 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a rename would be an improvement, so I'd support that if no consensus to delete or merge. VegaDark (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How about: Rename each to Wikipedian vocalists-# - jc37 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But the userboxes say "singer", and there's a difference in scope; remember the death grunt category that got deleted. Singers-# can be subcategories to Category:Wikipedian vocalists, which can also include spoken word artists, growlers, screamers, and rappers. –Pomte 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a "not" category, as this is for people who did not go to college. Can not help encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Analogous to Category:Self-educated Wikipedians? –Pomte 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't mind if this were merged with that. VegaDark (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean that they should be merged, but that Category:Self-educated Wikipedians appears to be an example of a legitimate "not" category. In order to be self-educated, you have to not attend an official educational institution. If this gets deleted, than so should that? –Pomte 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Oppose Merge - This is different semantically than just being "self-educated". It's more about the "ups and downs" of life experience. - jc37 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A dizzyingly ambiguous category does not appear to have been designed with categorization in mind.--WaltCip 14:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I guess. Or else Delete. Ambiguous? It's pretty clear on this side of the pond: it means "I didn't go to college, you got a problem with that?" Which isn't really the same as claiming autodidacticism. Herostratus 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's possible to go to Harvard and the School of Hard Knocks, though probably not in that order.--Mike Selinker 18:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to Delete, Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations. - jc37 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians Who Dual Boot
• Category:Wikipedians who use dual boot configurations

I can't think of how these categories could really support collaboration. Just because they use such a configuration does not mean they are more knowledgeable about dual booting, and even if they are, one article to collaborate on does not justify an entire category for it. At least needs merging. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as nominator, merge both if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While technical information is useful, this is too vague. Dual boot with what? DR-DOS and Windows 3.1? : ) - jc37 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Would you rather have just one category for dual-booters, or a few hundred for each OS combination of dual booting ? Rugby471 06:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Would I like a potentially all-inclusive category, or a myriad of sub-categories intersected by twos, consisting of every operating system in existence? - Neither - jc37 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many Wikipedians are concerned about a lot of things. We don't need a category for each one, though. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too specific and personal for an encyclopedia community; inaccurate name for the userbox User:Barfbagger/Userboxes/Body Mass Index. –Pomte 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too vague. Doesn't explain why they are concerned about their weight. Consumption? Obesity? Anorexia? Bulimia? - jc37 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pushing it Bulldog123 10:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no Dr. Wikipedia.--WaltCip 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Nominating the parent for deletion. - jc37 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food-1
• Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food-2
• Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food-3

We don't need levels for this, also levels are reserved for babel categories, which this isn't. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food as nominator. VegaDark (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why the WP:BABEL format can't apply to other types of categories, considering how useful they are to languages. This is a rare example in which user categories are truly useful (and take note that I'm against the whole idea of user categories in general): For most userboxes, you can find out who slapped them onto their userpages by using Special:Whatlinkshere. But for userboxes with parameters that affect what they say, like language and spicy food userboxes, there is no easy way to find out who likes spicy food vs. who really really loves spicy food. If you ever want to find that stuff out, user categories that get added depending on the parameter given come in really handy. Presumably, people with User:UBX/Red Pepper-3 would want to talk to others in their own league, not those weasly amateurs with User:UBX/Red Pepper-1. What you have suggested is a really huge spicy food category with less potential use. To complicate the clutter, there is also User:UBX/Curry which populates userpages into the same parent category. –Pomte 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the above. I had disillusioned myself into thinking it was one userbox. –Pomte 03:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Strongly Oppose Merge - I created these categories per existing userboxes which were separated by spiciness tolerance/preference levels. However, I don't see the need for categorisation of those who like spicy food. If kept, I oppose the merger, since it's a valid distinction for sub-categorisation, and if Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food is found to be valid categorisation, so then are these. - jc37 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting is fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Depopulate Babel user categories and apply the consensus detail at end of debate, preferably that of the deletion persuasion per nom.--WaltCip 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, including parent. No different than any other food category.--Mike Selinker 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If this nom results in deletion (which seems to be the direction it's heading), I'll nominate the parent cat for deletion as well. I would like to wait at least until then with the parent, since it was so recently up for discussion. - jc37 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 all.--Mike Selinker 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy the Mexican soccer league → Category:Wikipedian Primera División de México fans

(article: Primera División de México)

Category:Wikipedians are fans of Pumas UNAM → Category:Wikipedian Club Universidad Nacional fans

(article: Club Universidad Nacional)

Category:Wikipedians who growl for the UANL Tigres → Category:Wikipedian UANL Tigres fans

(article: UANL Tigres)

Category:Wikipedians who love Chivas de Guadalajara → Category:Wikipedian Club Deportivo Guadalajara fans

(article: Club Deportivo Guadalajara)

Based on the convention in Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams. These teams have multiple aliases, so it's best to stick to the article name until the article name changes. However, I think it's more clear to say "Wikipedian fans of Club..." because they can be construed as a "Wikipedian Club" of something. –Pomte 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all.--Mike Selinker 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans. VegaDark (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who support Rayados del Monterrey Not correct with the other categories requires renaming.

• Rename As nominator.Tellyaddict 12:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedian Rayados del Monterrey fans or to Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to one of Jc's options per "Wikipedian x fans" naming conventions. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - relisted for more discussion. - jc37 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedian Club de Fútbol Monterrey fans as long as Club de Fútbol Monterrey is the article name. –Pomte 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who refuse to wear fur. to Category:Wikipedians who refuse to wear fur --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Category is a "not" category, and can not contribute to encyclopedia building. VegaDark 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Uh... no comment. Esperanza Ortega 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. bibliomaniac15 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for deletion.--WaltCip 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I moved this here from speedy. –Pomte 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The relist being completed, delete per the nomination.--WaltCip 10:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume you mean per User:VegaDark? (Since the nom was asking for a speedy rename, which already happened.) - jc37 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, yeah, per VegaDark. Sorry.--WaltCip 15:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Limerent Wikipedians - "A list of Wikipedians that have a crush on someone." - If not "all-inclusive", would seem to be close to it. - jc37 08:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 08:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too broad, not helpful, and if I were out to catch the attention of Wikipedians, I'd go for the non-limerent ones. –Pomte 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not help Wikipedia. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young adult Wikipedians - "This category is for Wikipedia editors who are adolescents, twentysomethings or thirtysomethings." - Duplicates: Category:Wikipedians in their teens, Category:Wikipedians in their 20s, Category:Wikipedians in their 30s. - jc37 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vague and redundant. –Pomte 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, silly category. I just indef-blocked the creator. Picaroon (Talk) 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category has no relevance to Wikipedia. It goes witout saying that some Wikipedians contribute using more than one IP address.

• Delete as nominator. It holds no relevance or significance.--Tempest115 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No use for non-CheckUsers. –Pomte 05:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant with checkusering.--WaltCip 15:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally unuseful Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all - jc37 12:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:User pig
• Category:User pig-1
• Category:User pig-2
• Category:User pig-3
• Category:User pig-4
• Category:User pig-5

I'm having a hard time imagining the use of these for categorisation purposes. But if kept, they at least need to be renamed due to the existance of Pisabo. (And as an exception to the notice at the top of this page, we should consider this discussion an attempt to determine consensus on what the associated userbox templates should be renamed to as well.) Is pl taken? - jc37 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. No idea what abbreviation to use if kept. - jc37 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I think the rule should be no babel categories for any language you will never see a Wikipedia in (i.e. pig.wikipedia.org). This is one of those. VegaDark 10:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That wouldn't work, since there is a whole set of crteria for creating a language-based Wikipedia, and some rather legitimate languages haven't as yet "passed the bar" as it were. - jc37 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I said ones you will never see, not just ones we don't have currently. Stuff like this, "californian english" "1337" and other such nonsense don't require babel categories as far as i'm concerned. VegaDark 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I cannot see the point in these, Its hard to have a clue as to what their about unless you look carefully, irrelevant categories. I think User:jc37 summed it up well. Regards - The Sunshine Man 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as they don't facilitate collaboration. If they must be kept, at least rename them to Category:PigLatin to avoid conflict with Pisabo (which I'll try to write a stub on now). Picaroon (Talk) 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Pisabo is a ridiculously irrelevant language. Not that Pig Latin is the Mandarin language or something, but it's still much more commonly spoken and known than a language spoken by 500 Peruvians. A move to pl wouldn't be inappropriate, however. I do believe that grouping users based on this is not totally useful... but neither does it detract from writing an encyclopedia. Just my two cents. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The premise that a superfluous category does not detract from an encyclopedia is false. The purpose of the category system is to categorize for collaboration, not be a moot category.--WaltCip 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ridiculously irrelevant?" Matt Yeager, that comment is offensive and demeaning towards five hundred human beings like yourself. You are very lucky that the couple Pisabo speakers who have any grasp of the English language will probably never see this debate. Please imbue your comments with a deeper sense of perspective from now on. Picaroon (Talk) 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - didn't depopulate per comment below, though it was a single user. - jc37 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious nonsense. May be speedyable if this UCFD can be considered precedent. VegaDark 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Come on don't delete it. I hate the automatic categories that come with some user boxes so I decided to make a category of people who refused to be categorized. If that makes any sense. icewedge 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  I think I see what your intention was: Category:Wikipedians opposed to arbitrary category inclusion in userboxes - That would mean at least a rename for clarity. However, such a category would likely be deleted due to being "all-inclusive", since it means that you support the current guideline at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion. And in the past, we've deleted guideline/policy supporter categories. - jc37 02:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This can be solved by adding an option to each userbox for not categorizing. –Pomte 03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per infinity.--WaltCip 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per logic. Everyone who wants to be in this category, doesn't really belong there. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think not removing this from the user page and keeping as a redlink would give it a nice touch of satire. bibliomaniac15 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that. Brilliant idea!--WaltCip 02:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Logically, this is useless. Gutworth 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointless. Oren0 07:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant, if you add a userbox and it categorises you there is nothing much you can do about it, I don't see the problem in being categorised anyway.The Sunshine Man 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How this category can help collaboration? Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - If, as suggested in the discussion, this category is about such voting on Wikipedia, it should be renominated for a rename along those lines. - jc37 11:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a "not" category, categorizing users in this can not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It would seem on the face of it that it is not true that "categorizing users in this can not facilitate collaboration." The creation of this category is the creation of means of collaborating on this issue. I'm pretty sure there are other categories of this sort which will never be considered for deletion, and so I would object on that basis. So long to Category:Wikipedians who oppose the death penalty, etc. Gregbard 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Gregbard can put himself in a Category:Wikipedians interested in voting systems (or whatever the name of the actual category is) if he wishes to collaborate on the subject. (And the death penalty cat should probably be merged into one for pro-lifers.) --tjstrf talk 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some convention against "not" categories? I'm pretty sure the people in the anti-death penalty category will find your recommendation to be NOT helpful at all. "Pro-life" obviously means something very different to people who are only pro-life on the abortion issue, but not on the death penalty issue. The distinction made by both of these "not" categories is a useful one. If this category is deleted you are going to force me to nominate the anti-death penalty for deletion also. I would recommend taking on that category first, and not picking on small categories that hope to grow. That would be the principled way to handle it if you are so sure the principle holds. Since the discussion on this will only be me by myself on the one side of this debate it will be easy for you to pick me off eventually if you really want to. After we go through the process of deleting the anti-death penalty category (which will fail), I will merely reintroduce the category on principle. The whole this seems a big waste of effort. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you two are in favor of IRV? Be well. Gregbard 23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is a long-standing precedent against any not category which does not have a significant meaning beyond just not being/supporting x, as they are divisive and, even when not divisive, generally useless. (See Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories which, although historical tagged since it never got much discussion, does roughly reflect the reasoning I see used by most WP:UCFD regulars.) People are expected to collaborate with those of other perspectives on issues, so your category does not aid in collaboration that the "interested in voting systems" one would not provide equally well. As for your suggestion of nominating the anti-death penalty category, if you want to you can, but only do so if you actually think it should go, not to prove some WP:POINT or out of revenge for your own category. And no, I don't care in the slightest about instant runoff voting. --tjstrf talk 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care about instant runoff voting either, and I would support deleting or renaming the death penalty category. VegaDark 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me, but the guidelines on this issue say: "...However, categories that express an opposition to something are acceptable as long as an equivalent category expressing the acceptance of an opposing cause cannot be made. For example, Category:Wikipedians who oppose online censorship is acceptable, but Category:Wikipedians who oppose evolution is not since Category:Creationist Wikipedians exists." In the absence of such a positively named category, those opposed to instant run-off voting consist in an acceptable category. Those interested in voting systems are not the same, and pro-life is not the same as opposed to the death penalty either. Gregbard 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a guideline, it's an inactive proposed guideline. And sentences like those are probably why it never got past that. VegaDark 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is insane. So the written statement on the issue matters, but it doesn't really matter. That's pretty convenient. I would suggest that an active guideline be established before any other categories are deleted AT ALL. Otherwise we have what we have here: convoluted rationalizing. The prohibition on "NOT" categories is foolish, and should be abolished. Although that is not to say that there are clearly reasonable, and clearly unreasonable cases of "not" categories. It's just lazy to ban them all. Some of them make useful distinctions. What is written on this issue permits for this category. Removal should require an appeal to some other written statement in Wikipedia on the matter, not some administrator's vision of what is and is appropriate. In the absence of that you should leave it alone and get to work on the policy. The good faith effort on my part would seem to not include proposing a deletion of the death penalty category. However, the good faith effort includes learning what is and is not appropriate and acting on it. I am not seeing a principle of action developing here however. I would ask you VegaDark to go ahead and propose the deletion of the Category:Wikipedians who oppose the death penalty at this time That is apparently a more a proper role for you, but not myself. If it turns out that the number of members prevent it's deletion, while the NoIRV category is abolished, then at least I have learned something about the way wikipedia operates. That way, I can conduct myself within that culture. Perhaps new better "positive" categories will emerge as a result (but I doubt it). Be well, and thanks for your work. Gregbard 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - (Clarifying a couple things, in the hopes that it will help calm what seem to be stressed tempers.)

  There is more than a fair amount of history concerning userboxes, and user categories. I'll attempt to spare you the long, drawn out, detailed history, and just note that after many rather heated "discussions" (I'm being generous), most "sides" in the discussion agreed to what has now been merged to Wikipedia:Userboxes. So that is the "active guideline" you're asking for/about. (Specifically for this discussion, see the section on category inclusion.) As an aside, the page you found is one of many such proposals, so please understand why others may not consider it during the discussion above.

  As for "not" categories: After several discussions, the consensus was that "all-inclusive" user categories are not helpful, and merely are a potential list of all Wikipedians. And related to that, if two categories that are the same, differing by only "like" or "dislike", then the two together would also be considered "all-inclusive", and one should be deleted. It was decided that in most cases, the positive should be kept, since the negative version was less likely to result is "positive collaborative efforts to build Wikipedia" (paraphrased).

  That said, there is a difference between "not" categories, and "opposer/critic of an issue" categories. Unlike "not" categories, there are three options in this case: support/oppose/neutral. There is currently no consensus to consider such categories to be "not" categories.

  I hope this helps. - jc37 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No temper here. I'm just very expressive. I'll go along with whatever ends up. I think it great that anyone cares as much as I've seen Vega, JC37, and tgstrf. So let's just consider it a spirited debate. Be well. Thanks for the clarifications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep to help bring together the people opposed to the currently ridiculous and laughable system of category "discussion," "voting," and subsequent deletion. Mass-deletion of valid data is degrading Wikipedia, not helping it. This whole "voting on categories" thing is a total sham and SOMETHING ('ANYTHING!) MUST BE DONE SOON to remedy the Wiki-destruction that is happening through irrational, rash, unfair, idiotic, and stacked category deletions. It's impossible for people to watch all of the categories that they started, have worked on extensively, and are interested in...therefore, you could have dozens of people interested in a particular category, but if some of them are away from Wikipedia for 6 days while others don't look at the category for a week they could come back to find the whole category entirely wiped out with no record just because 3 or 4 editors with no stake or interest in the category voted to delete it. --Wassermann 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... but that's not what this is. Instant run-off voting is something completely different. -Amarkov moo! 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid, barely controversial cause. Not a "not" category; can be rephrased as Wikipedians who follow-up on discussions. Facilitates collaboration on an essay about this important issue, which is much needed in my opinion. –Pomte 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, what? This isn't a category for people who oppose instant runoff voting on Wikipedia, and if it is it really needs renamed to make that clear, so I really don't see what that has to do with anything at all. --tjstrf talk 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see. Nevermind. –Pomte 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - Listified the Film Barnstar recipients to the already existing list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Spotlight#Film Barnstar. I left the wikihalo recipients as redlinks to the category due to the messy (scattered redlinks) way in which Wikihalo and its subpages and templates were dealt with, and because most of the links were on archived pages. - jc37 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikihalo deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikihalo2, this should go too. --Iamunknown 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded nomination per User:VegaDark's comments. - jc37 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. --Iamunknown 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - Throughout the AfD discussion, comments clearly said that they felt that recipients were deserving, just that they opposed what they saw as a bureaucratic process. So the removal of the process doesn't mean we should remove the category of those who have received the awards. - jc37 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment was for when this nomination was just about Category:Wikihalo award recipients. I oppose deletion based on the original nomination's postulation, but I think I'm neutral on whether Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia award and its subcats should be deleted. Hoping for more discussion. - jc37 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recipients are indeed deserving, as are recipients of "Protector of the Wiki", "Anti-Vandalism" or other barnstars. The barnstar program has been just fine without categories; I fail to see how the Wikihalo program will suffer. --Iamunknown 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, along with Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia award and the film barnstar recipients one. When this was nominated last time, one of the only reasons presented for keeping it was because it was a special award that can only be given out via a vote. Now that point is moot, since it can be given out by anyone for any reason, and people can just check what pages the image is used on to find the recipients (just like for every other award). A category is redundant and not needed. VegaDark 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From what I've seen, the Wikihalo seems to be an arbitrary subjective award. That alone poses bureaucracy issues, similar to editcountitis.--WaltCip 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I'd like to emphasize that it's VERY much like editcountitis. Any admin who is deserving enough of a Barnstar does not require a category; one could merely look at the main page to see them. I'd like to use as my favorite example, Mailer Diablo. That guy has a showcase for his Barnstars; he doesn't need a category for them for it to be known. Plus, there's little collaborative value involved (unless you somehow make the argument that a Wikipedian with a barnstar has better editing quality than everyone else... and then it REALLY becomes subjective.)--WaltCip 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If wikihalos are gone, so too should be the category. Oren0 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If deleted (which is starting to look like the general consensus), We should allow the WikiProject, at least, to make a list sub-page, if they wish, before it's deleted. - jc37 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the awards are arbitrarily given. Subpagify if WikiProject-endorsed. –Pomte 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy upmerge per original creator request below. VegaDark 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the already existing Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians, and should be upmerged. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as category creator. Didn't realise Category:International Baccalaureate Wikipedians existed. Zuracech lordum 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:User hu-1. - jc37 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense babel category. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does that make me es-½? bibliomaniac15 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:User hu-1. - jc37 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine by me. VegaDark (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN Doesn't anyone find it funny? Placeholder account 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No 6-level categories, please. This is nonsense. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Level 6 goes too far. Oren0 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 5 barely has consensus, so no 6 if you please : ) - jc37 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete Contrary to Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content which user categories fall under as well (per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion). Express likes (or rarely, dislikes} - but not both in a single category (or userbox for that matter). - jc37 10:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense babel category. "This user can write XHTML, and knows why it's better than HTML." VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to postpone/bypass this debate, see above discussion of all Pig Latin categories. Picaroon (Talk) 00:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as speaking pig Latin at a professional level. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pig Latin is a binary language; you either speak it correctly or you don't. There's no such thing as "professional" Pig Latin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem useful. (Also, the rest of these pig categories should be renamed to User PigLatin or something. pig should be reserved for Pisabo.) Jon Harald Søby 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WHile I think this could be "possible", I'm at a loss to find references to support it. - jc37 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. VegaDark (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UpMerge Category:Wikipedians in the Americas sub-cats to Category:Wikipedians by location, and depopulate. - Unnecessary category level. - jc37 07:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge as nominator. - jc37 07:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. This category is unnecessary. VegaDark 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge I had wondered about this one when I had to navigate through it. –Pomte 05:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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