< March 2007	May 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American Wikipedia administrators
• Category:Australian Wikipedia administrators
• Category:English Wikipedia administrators
• Category:Canadian Wikipedia administrators
• Category:Indian Wikipedia administrators
• Category:New Zealand Wikipedia administrators

To put it simply, subcategorizing national user categories based upon who among them is an admin is bad idea. As Jimbo himself said, "Adminship is no big deal." While the main administrators category is meant to facilitate finding an admin, these categories do nothing but elevate adminship above other users and make it look like a big deal, which is a Bad Thing. I foresee that some will say "but they facilitate collaboration." No, in fact, they don't (or, at least, they shouldn't). There is no reason whatsoever that a Canadian admin is any better suited to using his/her administrator tools on a Canada-related article than a Peruvian or Czech one is; in fact, in certain situations, it may be the opposite. We should delete these categories because they serve to divide Wikipedia between admins and non-admins. Picaroon (Talk) 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization of a group that should be treated as a single worldwide group. Those who are really interested can find the intersection between Category:Wikipedia administrators and the various Category:Wikipedians by location. –Pomte 23:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Picaroon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe the point of creating them initially was something like 'If X is in Category:Australian Wikipedia administrators, X will possibly be online at such and such time, and therefore be able to help me'. However, we seem to be a big bunch of insomniacs, so I don't think that really works :) Also useless for people like myself who identify as bi-national and have been placed in two categories. So, delete per nom. – Riana _ऋ 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're certainly right about that - these categories are more geared towards providing user information than being used for collaboration. As to finding someone who is awake and therefore able to help, the deletion and block logs will do that. Picaroon (Talk) 00:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Aye, that's definitely more efficient. – Riana _ऋ 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. An excellent argument for deletion; I came here thinking I'd !vote "Keep". ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the "Wikipedia administrators" category is good enough. I don't care where an administrator is from as long as they can help me if I need their assistance. Acalamari 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can think of many cases where I might want an editor of a certain nationality, so don't nominate those categories, but there are no cases in which someone should specifically want an admin of a certain nationality. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep precisely per Amarkov's argument: I want to be able to find an admin of a certain nationality to help identify vandalism that might be specific to such a nationality. In addition, I can't see any way that including this hurts the project, yet plenty of ways that it could help. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Finding an admin comes from a specific country means being able to find an admin who may know something about national issues of that country - to identify hoaxes, inaccurate statements etc. Od Mishehu 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you need an admin to do that? Many non-admins are just as capable of providing such assistance. VegaDark 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Intersection by location. While I understand the concern of having someone who may know something about the topic, that's pretty much nullified, since we also have Wikipedian location cats. - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I removed myself from such a category just a week before. I do agree that wikipedia is global in character and we the wikipedians should not try to segment ourselves in so many categories. --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Barfbagger 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jimbo and Picaroon. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 14:11, 1 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 No consensus - First of all, this falls under "Supporter/critic of X", and is not a "not" category per se. Second, whether global warming of any particular type is notable is beyond the scope of this discussion. But even discounting those comments, it still came up No consensus. A remaining main concern is that it's essentially unfair to single out one support/critic category, and not the rest. So I think at this point, the next step, if someone is still interested, would be to nominate all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by political issue in one or more group nominations. Otherwise, repeated nominations of these categories are starting to look like WP:SNOW discussions resulting in No consensus/keeps. - jc37 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a NOT category, which is prohibited by precedence based on previous user categories. Why deny fact, anyway?

• Delete as nominator.--WaltCip 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course. YechielMan 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, category does not help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a "not" category. Not useful. User:Jossi 00:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "not" category. Although "Fact" is not proven - a strong correlation, yes - and skeptic does not mean deny. Barfbagger 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not sure what a NOT category is, but "denying fact" is simply not what this category is (see the non-trivial list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming). It's also worth noting that skepticism and denial are not the same. If we allow Category:Global warming skeptics to list notable people who are skeptical, why not allow an analogous category for users? This category is easily encyclopedic as there are many articles that the skeptics could collaborate on (the one listed above, and the pages of leading skeptics like Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov). Also, I've used this category to get help in talks/discussions trying to keep Global Warming and related articles non-POV, because the skeptics tend to get railroaded in those discussions. Oren0 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not use Wikilawyering and WP:ILIKEIT to foster your arguments.--WaltCip 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how my post was Wikilawyering. I wasn't attempting to use WP:ILIKEIT, but rather to demonstrate that there is an excyclopedic use for this category, to refute those above that said it is unencyclopedic. Oren0 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading the four points of Wikipedia:WikiLawyering and reading over WP:ILIKEIT at WP:AADD, I think this is more a case of WP:KETTLE. (And I may link to WP:BASH with just a touch of irony.) - jc37 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Oren0's reasons. It seems to be used as a tool for POV-pushing. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Man-made Global Warming is not universally accepted as fact. If you desire to understand Global Warming skepticism better, the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle puts out the Global Warming skeptic point of view about as well as An Inconvenient Truth puts out the mainstream view. If there is a category for Wikipedians who support changing the flag of New Zealand, there definitely should be a category for man-made Global Warming skeptics. If you're in an editing dispute with somebody over a Global Warming article, wouldn't you want to know if that person were a man-made Global Warming skeptic so you could understand where they were coming from? If this category were to be deleted, you'd probably have to delete alot of similar categories relating to political beliefs of Wikipedians. This category isn't used for POV-pushing anymore than all the other similar categories. Life, Liberty, Property 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per LLP. I was somewhat unsure about this, but the idea that you need to categorise people in order to understand their edits is a very bad one (nb: LLP is one of those canvassed by OrenO [1]) William M. Connolley 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note canvassing by OrenO, BTW [2] and [3] William M. Connolley 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at who replied 7mn after OrenO on my talk page. Interesting Timing (UTC).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talk • contribs). (yes, all of the indented text). It must be a kind of twisted joke, William has about 1000 more edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR than Zeeboid has in total. --Stephan Schulz 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:IAR. Though as stated above, this is not a vote, however if we're all voting, then I say that the skeptics shouldn't be silenced like the Church of Global Warming here would like to have done.--Zeeboid 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Life, Liberty, Property express it well, this is not for people who deny global warming exists or who are expressing hate for those who believe that humans are the major cause of global warming. This is for people who are not convinced that the mainstream view is correct. Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (note I have not been canvassed, I spotted this on my watchlist). Thryduulf 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken, but it's still a POV category.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? Users are allowed a POV, as long as they work with others so that the articles are NPOV this is not a problem. We have Category:Wikipedians by political organization which is full of categories that express a POV - judging by their number and size of some of them there must be consensus that these are acceptable. When users express that they hold a POV it helps maintain neutrality by being able to find people with other view points to offer balance and alternative perspectives. Thryduulf 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in global warming. This isn't quite a "not" category, but there is potential for collaboration among this group on articles related to global warming. —ptk✰fgs 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect argument, for those who would deny the process of anthropogenic global warming would not be interested in the subject, out of apathy.--WaltCip 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Walt, I am still pro-deletion but I think some of your arguments are becoming too un-Wikipedian, you can't know whether anthropogenic warming "skeptics" would be apathetic. There is also a difference between deniers and skeptics. Let's try and stick to the fundamentals of the argument for deletion of the category and not the relative merits of the climate change debate. Barfbagger 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No, sir, skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is necessarily an interest in the topic. This is beyond obvious. —ptk✰fgs 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there are many people who are sceptical about the subject, and its a valid category following all the usual rules, the thing should really be kept. Amongst other things, it can be used as a sort of Declaration of Personal Interests when an editor makes an odd edit to pages on Global Warming, make sure theres no question of unbalance. Therefore, i suggest the category is Strongly Kept As Is without major changes. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename to 'interested in' no POV groupings on wikipedia.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What's wrong with canvassing? People who are in this category deserve to know that it's up for deletion so they can express their opinions as to its merit. I didn't ask anyone to voice any particular opinion, I was just noting the fact that it's up for deletion. Oren0 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential meatpuppetry.--WaltCip 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, but none of these people are puppets as far as I know, and I don't understand why you and William M. Connolley are making such a big deal out of it. Oren0 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to any interested: See Wikipedia:Canvassing. - jc37 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously less contentious than a lot of other categories on Wikipedia. I don't see any rules being broken here. Carry on. ~ UBeR 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, not because it's a "not" category, but because it serves no useful purpose in building an encyclopedia and could easily be abused. --Tony Sidaway 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mind elaborating? Why is grouping people who are interested in global warming skepticism unencyclopedic? We do that with Wikiprojects all the time; it helps build collaboration. How do you foresee this being abused? Oren0 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I think that the point that this is not a valid category is probably technically correct. It might be appropriate to replace it (and similar invalid "wikipedians who..." categories) with a userbox that says the same, with an integral link to "what links here" to that userbox to get a list... --Athol Mullen 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pertinent on subject pages for the scientists, who are being cited as authorities. It isn't here, because we do not edit as authorities. it encourages eds. to think in stereotyped ways, and promotes canvassing. Anyway, its easy enough to tell from any of the talk pages. DGG 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not edit as authorities, true, which is why this category is completely separate from categories of articles about people who are authorities. I fail to see how including yourself in a category encourages you to edit in a stereotypical way. Additionally all user categories can be used for canvassing, as can membership lists on WikiProjects, as can contribution histories. Should we delete all these because they might be used for canvassing? Thryduulf 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if knowing an editor's opinion on global warming isn't helpful for most purposes, it effectively serves to identify and segment him in certain ways familiar with the debate. Also good for keeping an eye out on possible ideologically motivated edits (e.g.: a user with this on his userpage and 3 contribs, one of which is placing himself in this cat., adds eight paragraphs from a Steven Milloy article to global warming. Instead of just wordlessly reverting or giving a boilerplate WP:NOT lecture, more savvy editors can preemptively let the skeptic know why excessively tendentious edits are usually frowned on.) --zenohockey 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also remember that Wikipedia is not a blog, per WP:NOT. We must try to maintain an NPOV. Seeing editors using the category as a crutch for their weasel-worded edits to scientific topics is the very reason why the category should be deleted.--WaltCip 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I really don't see the harm in having such a category, especially given the abundance of other categories as varied as "Wikipedians who love cats" and "Wikipedians who play sudoku" (to cite a couple of examples that appear on my own user page). It all seems very harmless, and the remark at the top where the deletion is recommended--"Why deny fact, anyway?"--hints that the recommendation is motivated by disagreement with the position and perhaps a desire to suppress it or at least devalue it as irrelevant (much in the vein of people like Ellen Goodman linking global warming skeptics with "Holocaust deniers"--see Politics of global warming for the quote). I hope that was not the intention, but that remark about "fact" sure comes across that way. --MollyTheCat 02:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No harm in having it. I find it helps me identify users with what I believe are scientific and honest intentions. Prester John 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...This category is the result of User boxes and is as "encyclopedic" as the other Categories based on User boxes. And it is plainly obvious the the ad hominem attack on Oren0 by falsely claiming Canvassing is baseless on 2 points. 1: The list of people Oren0 notified of this deletion request were obviously taken from the list of people in the category. 2: The so-called "canvassing" consisted of the following text, "If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here." What the people claiming "Canvassing" has occurred intentionally ignore is the following, "reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Certainly the abject nature they so quickly claim "Canvassing" (which, btw, they do constantly as well) should be balanced and warrant dismissing the claims as what they are: worthless hot-air. I guess that could be considered anthropogenic contributions to global warming.  :) -- Tony G 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I looked back at the edit history and found that WaltCip created this CFD and also voted Delete. Here's the proof; Isn't this bad form or something similar? Life, Liberty, Property 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is proper form for the nominator to clearly state his position. See the process info at WP:CFD. –Pomte 05:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Let me make my point very clearly for those who do not see it:

• 1 - I am deleting the category because it is a "NOT" category.
• 2 - I am deleting the category based on the premise that little collaborative value can come from it, other than divisive politicism and biased editing.
• 3 - Gladly, I would delete the other political categories as well, but I am starting with this as it is the most volatile (and I do believe that it's "denying fact", but that's an entirely different bag of chips).
• 4 - So far, the majority of arguments I have seen are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:USEFUL, WP:HARMLESS, and other variants.
• 5 - If people wish to "state their opinion", the userbox very well serves that purpose.

• Let these points be known by the deleting admin.--WaltCip 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth noting that the majority of the delete arguments are WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JUSTAPOLICY, or WP:PERNOM. And for the record, I don't see why global warming skepticism is a "NOT" category any more than, say, Category:Anarchist Wikipedians or Category:Anti-communist Wikipedians (unless you'd call these "NOT" categories as well, but I wouldn't). This category isn't about not supporting global warming, it's about skepticism. Being a global warming skeptic is not an unreasonable position, and, as I've noted above, this category can help increase collaboration. Oren0 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to add that one of the pro-deletion arguments is that being a Global Warming skeptic is "denying fact," which is a blatantly pov statement. That is definitely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is another argument not to use. Life, Liberty, Property 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If kept, this at minimum needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedian global warming skeptics to match the mainspace category. I'd prefer "Wikipedians interested in global warming", though. VegaDark 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So would I. If this category must be kept, at least make it somewhat unilateral.--WaltCip 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be opposed to Category:Wikipedian global warming skeptics or Category:Wikipedians interested in global warming skepticism. Oren0 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As Oren0 notes, this category is routinely abused for canvassing/votestacking. On the other hand, since such abuse is easily detectable, it probably doesn't do a lot of harm, except to those who participate in such stacks.JQ 05:04, 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.

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 No consensus - either for whether they should be deleted, or whether renamed to "interested in". - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough articles for such users to collaborate on to justify this specific of a subcategory - VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Phantastic Wikipedians - Apparently this is a category for Phantom of the Opera fans.
  • Category:Wikipedians who like 300
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Blade Runner
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Dr. Strangelove
  • Category:Wikipedians who like High School Musical
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Magnolia
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Memento
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Mrs. Doubtfire
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Spaceballs - But, might I add, is one of the best movies ever.
  • Category:Wikipedians who like The Rocky Horror Picture Show

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least 3 - There are a number of Phantom of the Opera, ((High School Musical)) and ((Blade Runner)) articles. These can be renamed to clarify that the users are interested in the series in general, but that is implied. Also, I reject the collaboration argument because there's a sense that it is irrelevant at WT:UCFD. –Pomte 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Else this category would eventually encompass every movie ever made. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but keep 3 maybe 4 as above. I agree we can't have such a category for every film, book, Star Wars character, etc., etc., etc. The three exceptions noted probably have enough activity to justify categories like this, as might Rocky Horror. At some point precendent needs to evolve as to what does or doesn't have such a level of activity. Maybe this will be a start. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rocky Horror -- it has its own category with multiple pages, and its fandom reaches far beyond the average concept of liking a movie. I'd be inclined to keep the Phantom and Blade Runner ones as well, for similar reasons, though those are more limited topics. I'm neutral on the others... I can see that all of them have more of a fanbase than the average movie, but also that we shouldn't have a category for fans of every movie ever. Pinball22 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't have a problem with keeping the 3 or 4 mentioned that have been shown to have a number of articles people could contribute on, but I do think they need renames to signify this. VegaDark 18:58, 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 No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough articles for such users to collaborate on to justify this specific of a subcategory (I would be open to the possibility for a category that would also include its sequel, though) - VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedians who like 2001: A Space Odyssey
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Airplane!
  • Category:Wikipedians who like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
  • Category:Wikipedians who like Dumb and Dumber

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2, rename 2: Ren. the first and third to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Space Odyssey films and Category:Wikipedians interested in the Man with No Name films (we don't need "series" in the category name), but just remove Airplane! and D&D'er. These movies don't generate enough activity to warrant categories. If the Space Odyssey cat is for the books too, then "...Space Odyssey series" instead of "films". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 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 Rename per nom - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like James Bond - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in James Bond (This category is for more than just films)
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Narnia - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Narnia (looks to be a category for the books as well)
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself. And in some of the cases above, the books are more famous, or at least equally as famous as the film. Then there are other marketing tie ins, such as toys, comic books, and so on. All of which have the potential for articles. (Imagine: Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse.) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, I don't see how my proposed renames would affect that? I specifically didn't add films at the end of the name because of this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, I was supporting not adding something like "films and media" or whatever, while still opposing "interested in". - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for reasons already given above. I do imagine Category:Wikipedians who like Mickey Mouse, and that simply makes me support the rename even more. Its the only practical solution. We can't plausibly have an endless proliferation of categories like "who like Mickey Mouse T-shirts", "who like Mickey Mouse watches", "who like Mickey Mouse plush toys", etc., etc., etc. Mickey Mouse-related collaboration needs to be centralized. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and adjust or create other categories as suggested. DGG 07:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. icewedge 23:37, 4 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 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 No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Wikipedia Ghostbuster fans to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ghostbusters films and media (film or films? What I have sounds wrong but I think it is grammatically correct)
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like the Matrix series to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Matrix series

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename each to Category:Wikipedians who like the <name> film series or Category:Wikipedians who like <name> (film series) - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in the Ghostbusters series if for more than the movies (i.e. comics, etc.); otherwise "the Ghostbusters films"; no need for both. Rename Matrix one as nominated, since Animatrix isn't really a film but a collection of animated shorts. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 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 No consensus - jc37 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python to Category:Wikipedians interested in Monty Python films and media (Couldn't think of a better name that would also include the TV show - feel free to come up with one)

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). Weakly opposing the addition of "films and media". By their nature, some film-related topics span more than just a film itself (see Star Wars above). But in this case, consider that this category has the related idea that it's like Wikipedians who like the Muppets. - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "interested in" as a worse, impersonal, generic, ambiguous name. I am very interested in Monty Python films for some convoluted personal reasons but I haven't seen any in full and so I don't know anything about them to contribute significantly to their articles. To like something, you at least should know some substantial information about it. Those who dislike them are also interested, but are less likely to contribute in a well manner. As long as we have user categories, which do not facilitate collaboration but rather build a sense of community, there is nothing wrong with grouping those who like a certain thing that is unlikely to cause conflict. –Pomte 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we presume that these comments refer to all the film discussions above in regards to the "inetrested in" renames? - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. –Pomte 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "interested in Monty Python" - don't include "films" if not limited to films. NB: The fact that it is impersonal and "generic" is much of the entire point. It isn't "ambiguous" at all if the confusing "films" is dropped. Agree with Jc37 that "films and media" isn't very useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 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 Rename per nom. - jc37 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Ralph Bakshi films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ralph Bakshi films
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Stanley Kubrick films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Stanley Kubrick films
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like David Lynch films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in David Lynch films
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who like Ed Wood films - Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ed Wood films

- VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose "interested in" - else all sub cats of Category:Wikipedians would be eventually renamed to "interested in" (which I also oppose). - jc37 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? How is "Wikipedians who like" better than "Wikipedians interested in" in terms of encyclopedic use? I like thousands of things, but I am not interested in collaborating on all of them. Naming categories as "who like" invites people to join the category for the sake of being in the category, not for collaboration, and I do believe all need to be changed from this. VegaDark 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that you do, and it's a point that you and I disagree on. As I've mentioned elsewhere (including the talk page) I think that the user categories are useful for more than direct collaborative use. I could mention a recent quote from User:Jimbo Wales, which states something similar, but considering how his quotes were (in my opinion) taken out of context in userbox discussions, I'll avoid quoting him now. (Besides, as he often states, in cases such as these, he prefers to be "just another editor".) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Giving this further thought. Debating "like" over "interested in" is subjective (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT), so I'm shifting to neutral. See also WT:UCFD. - jc37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support: All this "like" business is nonencyclopedic fannish silliness and has nothing to do with buiding an encyclopedia. The rename will be less divisive and PoV, and won't lead to the creation "not" categories in response. The rename does not harm the application of such categories "for more than direct collaborative use". And yes, do avoid quoting Jimbo unless you can demonstrate that he is speaking in his official role, which in that case he was not (in contrast with Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 30 April 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 - author (below) - jc37 12:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a user category, and no encyclopedic benefit that I can think of to search for users in such a category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Don't need a category to track users who use a certain template on their user page. –Pomte 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting template, not-so-useful category. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I created the template quite some time ago, but I now see that the category is useless indeed. --giandrea 12:19, 29 April 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

No article on 1stian, and therefore no indication that categorizing by this could help facilitate collaboration in any way. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Insert here some joke about 42, 47, or any other pop cultural number.) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 1 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 Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL - jc37 09:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an indication that it is a user category. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/speedy rename to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. –Pomte 05:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 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 Keep - jc37 08:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't possibly categorize all IP address contributors, and even if we could, why? VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for those who make significant contributions from one IP. Why not? This is more interesting to browse through than most if not all other categories. –Pomte 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - There are Wikipedians who choose to edit from IP alone. Perhaps the category introduction should be clarified. (Perhaps select some arbitrary minimum number of edits for inclusion?) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jc37 and Pomte. bibliomaniac15 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i thought otherwise, but Pomte is right. Presumably those who dont do it often won't put up a box. DGG 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a near-canon user category and not currently over-populated. Christopher Connor 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Intended for serious IP address contributors, as opposed to casual drive-bys. Very useful to show that yes, there are such things as serious IP address contributors, which is a perennial question that keeps coming up. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this is the case then the title should be more clear. I can just see someone going through and adding all anon contributors to this category. Perhaps Category:Anonymous Wikipedians who significantly contribute? And then in the category description it can specify the requirements to be in the category (100 or more non-vandalism mainspace edits?). VegaDark 18:52, 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 Delete all - jc37 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment and all subcategories[edit]

• Category:Wikipedians by D&D alignment
• Category:Alignmentless Wikipedians
• Category:Chaotic Evil Wikipedians
• Category:Chaotic Good Wikipedians
• Category:Chaotic Neutral Wikipedians
• Category:Lawful Evil Wikipedians
• Category:Lawful Good Wikipedians
• Category:Lawful Neutral Wikipedians
• Category:Neutral Evil Wikipedians
• Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians
• Category:True Neutral Wikipedians
• Category:Undecided Alignment Wikipedians

12 categories are not needed for the potential to collaborate on a single article. All of these need to be merged to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, or deleted. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete all as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a role playing game - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Delete. But remember that Wikipedia is an MMORPG. –Pomte 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Not for Wikipedia. Xiner (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I was all set to defend these, but after thinking about it, I can't really come up with a justification. It's something like "religion for the nonreligious," but that's so spongy it hardly counts. So go ahead and cut them. I am opposed to the merge to "who play D&D," because it's possible to adopt the alignment system in life without having any attachment to D&D as it is written.--Mike Selinker 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I was going to say to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, but based on Mike Selinker's comment, perhaps Category:Wikipedians who have a Dungeons & Dragons alignment? Thryduulf 00:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone introduced to the alignment concept can then have an alignment. It's trivial. –Pomte 04:39, 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 Delete - jc37 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for Wikipedians to ever go searching through this category for any reason that could help encyclopedia building. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ask them if they want to be in Category:Furry Wikipedians (doubt it). –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I'm not really sure if there's anything else that needs to be said. The category only contains two users, as well. --Coredesat 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - seems to just be a variation on Category:Furry Wikipedians, but not sure, since it's so vague (which is another reason to delete...) - jc37 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there an otherkin Wikipedians category or something of the sort? I didn't see one in a brief search. Though, looking at the pages of the two users in this category, I'm not sure whether they'd want to be there if there were. Pinball22 15:40, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've merged this to Category:Wikipedians interested in Star Wars instead, as Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars has been renamed to this above. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific for collaboration. There are thousands of Star Wars characters, we don't need to have a category for each one. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Wars as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. –Pomte 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. bibliomaniac15 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 03:27, 28 April 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:Wikipedians who like LazyTown - per author (below). Feel free to renominate for deletion, if wanted. - jc37 12:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians who like LazyTown per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians interested in television (although I believe this naming convention needs to change to "interested in" in the future). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• *Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename convention. –Pomte 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Sorry, I didn't know about the convention when I made it. My bad. D4g0thur 11:01, 28 April 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 - both have become empty since this was nominated, so there is nothing left to upmerge. VegaDark 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who support the Alpha Section
• Category:Wikipedians who support the IRIS Network

No articles on IRIS Network or Alpha section. Looks to be factions in the video game Beyond Good & Evil. No reason to categorize past the parent category, as it would be far too specific and would not facilitate collaboration further. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge both to Category:Wikipedians who play Beyond Good & Evil as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - do not help write an encyclopedia - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom as too specific. –Pomte 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge per nom. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 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 - No need for the speedy rename if deleted. Considering the new policy concerning those with such access, it's probably a better idea to delete this single user category, with no prejudice for it being recreated (with the rename suggestion) if deemed appropriate. - jc37 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename to Category:Wikipedians with OTRS access. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/speedy rename as nominator. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The category needs to be populated; see list at m:OTRS. –Pomte 05:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Users to Wikipedians. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ideally I'd like this deleted. OTRS people should try to keep it under their hat. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I'd prefer not to be listed in too many places. --Kim Bruning 03:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering about this as well. - jc37 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, probably don't delete. I believe we keep lists of everyone else with special access types, so I don't see the point of deletion here. It's voluntary to use the category anyway. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 1 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 - No consensus to Rename. Feel free to create Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food restaurants. - jc37 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares who "likes fast food"? Knowing who enjoys the tase of a particular type of food is not something we need to categorize. At minimum needs a rename to be more encyclopedic, and for proper capitalization. VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in fast food topics if no consensus to delete, as nominator ("Interested in fast food", by itself, still seems unencyclopedic. Adding "topics" at the end implies more than just the food, such as restaraunts, health issues, etc.). VegaDark 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename looks like a very good idea, reinforcing writing of encyclopedic articles - David Gerard 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is automatically generated from the UBX's and we don't want to have to have non-existent categories on userpages. --98E 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then we remove it from the userbox and voila!, no non-existant categories on userpages. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion: "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default." - jc37 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not rename, because there is no evidence that the members of the category are interested in fast food topics. Picaroon (Talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If they have a fast food UBX on their page then there IS proof. --98E 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little collaborative potential. Xiner (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Gerard. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do not rename. The intent of "interested in" in this case is in consumption, not collaboration : ) - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Gerard. That way we end up getting stuck with a non-beneficial no consensus result.--WaltCip 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename- looks useful, but the name looks a little dodgy. Best to keep it and rename it. Eaomatrix 15:50, 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 speedy rename. VegaDark 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who live in Chattanooga to Category:Wikipedians in Chattanooga, Tennessee Speedy Rename as nom, per "Wikipedians in X" standardized format (G6 also I believe). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename, but I'll wait for a second admin to verify as its technically not a speedy criteria. VegaDark 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Was originally placed over at WP:CFDS under criteria 4. Perhaps that would appropriate justification here as well. Fits the same formula. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy it; I think an upmerge would've been appropriate also. Xiner (talk) 22:42, 27 April 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 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the userbox this category is associated with, it is for people who have taken the exam, not written it, in which case it has no encyclopedic benefit. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are a lot of articles in Category:Advanced Placement for them to write on after becoming familiar with the exams. –Pomte 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people took AP exams in high school, myself included. I think it is an large logical leap to conculde that people who took AP exams would somehow be more interested in collaborating on anything in that category, and writing based on one's personal experience taking exams would be original research. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 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 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is highly unlikely that the users will collaborate on these articles. –Pomte 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In British English, this name refers to those who have taken the (American) exam. Confusing. Xiner (talk) 22:48, 27 April 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 Group-Nominate Category:Wikipedians by politics and its sub-categories for discussion, else feel free to continue this discussion on the talk page. - jc37 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See previous UCFD discussions here and here (the first one) on the subject.

There was a strong consensus in these previous discussions that these categories are unencyclopedic and should be merged/renamed to Wikipedians interested in X. The logic was that the "interested in" categories could promote collaboration, whereas support/opponse ones are inflammatory and without purpose. There are tons of these at Category:Wikipedians by politics. Oren0 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nom and reasons for it. Somehow, though, I'm not sure some of the members would be happy with it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I'd like to see every category that would be affected for the chance that some exceptions may be necessary (although I can't think of any offhand). VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This may or may not be more complex than it may appear. But sidestepping that for the moment, I would like this to be a more specific nomination, than just a vague suggestion of what categories are included. Are we discussing any category which someone somewhere thinks is such a cat? Or just all the cats under Category:Wikipedians by politics? I think for now, we should just start with the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by politics. And, since this has been so controversial in the past, they should each be tagged. As an aside, I wish that this nomination would have waited until a much more inclusive discussion could have been nominated (see the talk page to get a hint of what I mean), but I suppose that's moot atm. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I brought this up improperly. The consensuses at both discussions linked were nearly unanimous and the admins at deletion review told me to bring this up as a bulk nomination here. Oren0 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Based on that explanation, I believe that what they were likely suggesting, is to do a "mass-nom" (also known as a group nom). That means to do what you did above, but every category that you wish to have changed (renamed, deleted, merged, etc), needs to be tagged with a banner - such as ((cfd-user)) - to notify all those interested in a discussion about them and then a link to those categories listed with your nomination. Hope this helps. - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk) 22:58, 27 April 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 all to Category:Wikipedian high school students. - jc37 09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedian high school freshmen
• Category:Wikipedian high school sophomores
• Category:Wikipedian high school juniors
• Category:Wikipedian high school seniors

No benefit to Wikipedia from categorizing users this specifically that I can think of. Seems like overcatigorization, and I think all should be upmerged to Category:Wikipedian high school students. Also I should add that there have previously been concerns on having categories specifically for minors, and everyone not a senior generally are. Merging would hopefully avoid this issue alltogether. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator's above arguments. Colonel Tom 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.Barfbagger 21:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any and all high school student categories, merge if no consensus to delete. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please link any previous consensus on deleting categories for minors. I only know of WP:KIDS which didn't have consensus. –Pomte 23:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never did I state there was a consensus to delete such categories, I simply stated there were concerns on having such categories. In either case, I stand by my first point as the primary reason to merge these categories, I was simply mentioning the second point for an added incentive. VegaDark 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. We're not government. High school students have a right to be responsible for themselves - if they have an account, they exist, and therefore have an age - QED. By not giving them a category, we risk ad hominem.--WaltCip 00:55, 28 April 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:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons - jc37 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and should be merged there. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as creator - this version Category:Commons users is quite a bit shorter. Perhaps I should have proposed that Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikimedia Commons be renamed to Category:Commons users before I created Category:Commons users.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Users" goes against the user category naming convention of "Wikipedians". VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Barfbagger 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 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 Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce - jc37 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who use Bryce per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by software. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.Barfbagger 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, possibly speedy. Don't think it's controversial... Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:42, 25 April 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 - db-author (below) - jc37 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ben Bulben award is an unofficial Wikipedia award, apparently only awarded to users for working on the Ben Bulben article. Categories by official Wikipedia award is one thing, but categories for unofficial awards can be potentially endless, depending on how many made up awards users create. At minimum needs a rename to conform with naming conventions in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia award. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The box may be fine, but no need for the category. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm starting to be swayed that perhaps User:VegaDark's ratio of user category:article being 1:1 should equal deletion, may be the way to go. - jc37 08:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Okay. I agree. It's pointless and shoul be deleted. -Billy227 16:54, 26 April 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 per consensus, and apparently author (below). - jc37 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category. "This user potato skins". Wha? Is this supposed to mean "This user skins potatos? Either way, unencyclopedic category, and needs a rename at the very least. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Potato skins, and presumably Tato Skins, also (your guess is as good as mine). I am a little confused by the recent application of "unencyclopedic" to user categories – it's a bit like calling user pages "unenyclopedic", and you might as well delete all of them in that case. It does seem to have no useful purpose. Furthermore, it is only used on one page, which is generally a better indicator of a category's usefulness than an arbitrary "encyclopedicness" standard – Gurch 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my userbox, when you place an emotion in the piped part of the userbox transclusion, it forwards it into the userbox, so if I put ((User:Rugby471/Userboxes/potatoes|hate)), it would give you

. This is not a nosence category, and if you delete it why are you not deleting the other hunderds of userboxes? Rugby471 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could, I would... – Gurch 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a strong supporter of userboxes in general, I think I can get away with saying that you just made me make a spit take of laughter. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the red box at the top of the page. Your userbox will be kept, this discussion is only regarding the category. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename This is overcategorization. This usercat is obviously for people interested in potatoes, and should say so. Xiner (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Not" categories are not useful and too general. However, I agree that "unencyclopedic" is not an argument for deletion of user categories. Despite what VD says. Barfbagger 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why delete any user category that doesn't fall afoul of some other policy. They're not hurting anything, and deleting them is alienating people. Very, very few user categories aid in collaboration, so this mania for deleting some unencyclopedic categories and not others is just an abritrary way to upset contributors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per agreeing with previous discussions: in the case of food categories, the userbox is enough. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I only realised that just now ... Rugby471 15:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per VegaDark, nonsense category.Tellyaddict 12:36, 28 April 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 per author. - jc37 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? No explaination as to what this category is even for, and the name doesn't make sense. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See ((User:Steinninn/myself)); useless self-reference. –Pomte 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I know that this isn't a reason for deletion per se, but it should be said sometimes; this category is not contributing to building a better encyclopedia. Colonel Tom 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete beeing the one that created this user category I have no problem with someone deleting it. --Steinninn 06:18, 24 April 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 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many cities are there in the world? That would be the answer as to how many categories we would allow to be created if this were kept. I don't want to see a "formerly in" category for countries, let alone cities. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians from Munich. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This is similar to usercats that say a user's been to a certain U.S. state. Who cares? Xiner (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If they come from Munich fine then say so. If I listed all the cities I was formerly in it would require an almost immediate archival.Barfbagger 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The suggested rename may leave us in a situation where Wikipedians are inappropriately categorised. It is better to delete than to rename and thereby foster inaccuracy. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delete is fine by me. VegaDark 09:20, 25 April 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 - per author. - jc37 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny userbox, but the category is not helpful to Wikipedia in any way. There would be no reason to go through this category looking for users that I can think of. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creator of the category. If humorous categories aren't generally approved of then i don't mind if we get rid of it, its only me and a random sockpuppet who are actually in the category at the moment anyway. Orgone 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nice joke (is there a userbox for it?) but no category needed. Barfbagger 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Awesome! SchmuckyTheCat 01:05, 25 April 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 09:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want a "who survived" category for every disaster, natural or otherwise? Furthermore, this is an all-inclusive category, as almost the entire population of Earth survived Hurricane Katrina (the category doesn't specify you had to be at risk in order to be in the category). VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - I survived Katrina, safe in Australia. I've also survived every other natural disaster since my birth, as have you, gentle reader. Not a useful category. Colonel Tom 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well actually, I made the category for those in New Orleans who have been hit bad. I should have been more specific. |: --Xxhopingtearsxx 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously intended for those in the area, possible renaming might be nice. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all-inclusive. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the intended scope is pretty obvious, and don't see anyone categorizing themselves under it just for spite and semantics. There are a lot of articles and images in Category:Hurricane Katrina to collaborate on. On the other hand, "Wikipedians interested in Hurricane Katrina" would be all-inclusive as it received such massive coverage. Other major disasters can have similar categories, why not? –Pomte 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep it as a userbox; it'd achieve the same purpose. I will say that the name is not confusing - it's understood what "survived" means here. Xiner (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, contains only one user and this really isn't necessary. A non-categorizing userbox would suffice. --Coredesat 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although it is a relatively current event, there really isn't any need for this category, where a userbox would serve a better purpose. The scope is too ambiguous.--WaltCip 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essentially an all-inclusive category. Userbox is enough. —ptk✰fgs 02:53, 29 April 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 Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario - jc37 09:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs "Wikipedians" instead of "Users", also "on a regular basis" is unnecessary. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand why is it necessary to rename. Hari Seldon 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User category standard. All categories are named in the same purpose to main consistency and organization throughout the entire encyclopedia.--WaltCip 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, all categories with "Users" in it has been renamed to "Wikipedians", except for babel categories. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Barfbagger 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who read Milenio Diario per Milenio Diario and convention. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 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 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion a while back, seen here, but the category became empty during the nomination and was speedy deleted as such. Now it has been recreated, and this isn't technically speedyable since you are only supposed to delete things as a recreation if it still meets the reasons of why it was originally deleted, which this does not since it is not empty. If an admin wants to speedy this since it looks like there would have been a consensus to delete on the original nom, that is fine with me. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too specific; makes susceptible users easy to identify. –Pomte 02:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Barfbagger 21:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as categorising Wikipedians by having had an account "somewhere" hacked would seem to be a bad idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 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 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0-level category, which have all been deleted here. Listing for another admin to verify. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why? i made it 'cause i was born in uzbekistan, so some of my friends could think i know Uzbek Stas 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The userbox is effective in communicating this, which will be kept. Nobody would go looking through a category to find people who don't speak Uzbek, and hence a category is unnecessary, as determined previously for 0-level categories. VegaDark 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - We previously agreed that it should take at least two admins agreeing for speedying due to convention. Feel free, as far as I'm concerned. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 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 - The author apparently also requested the userbox be deleted [4]. - jc37 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Looks like a subsection of 4chan, no need to categorize past parent category. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who use 4chan. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• /u/pmerge per nom. –Pomte 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The category was created as a subsection because the /b/ board is...erm, a little different when compared to the rest of 4chan, and I felt it needed distinguishing from the rest. Blast ^{[improve me]} 24.04.07 1453 (UTC)

• Typical /b/ elitist attitude. /po/ and /ck/ and /y/ are more different in a way, and they can't all have subcategories. Although /b/ may be relevant to more people's interests than the others, it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. –Pomte 17:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me; I'm an elitist /b/astard with no other agenda than to promote /b/ and scour all mention of any other board from the Interwob.

However, because this is not the place for drama, and you're obviously entrenched in your opinion anyway, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Blast ^{[improve me]} 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)

• It also appears there was an AfD on /b/tards, resulting in redirecting it to 4chan. We don't need a category if there is no article on /b/tards. VegaDark 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, although the section in the 4chan article is rather sparse at the moment. Someone would, if they had a mind to, use the user category for improving it (although that may fall under WP:CRYSTAL—I'm not entirely sure). Blast ^{[improve me]} 24.04.07 1955 (UTC)

• Delete - categorising by sub-message board? Another not-so-good idea. - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Rule #1 & #2 Aranth 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which "rules" are you referring to? - jc37 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not talk about /b/. –Pomte 11:11, 29 April 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 all - While each had individual consensus for deletion, some comments in each applied just as well to the other categories, so closing all together. - jc37 09:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as per below ("not" category"). Both categories created by Andries (talk · contribs). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per below. Andries 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not everyone who used to belong to a particular religion necessarily does. If you want to collaborate on religions without saying you are a part of that religion, create "interested in" categories, i.e. Category:Wikipedians interested in religion, Category:Wikipedians interested in Catholicism, etc. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything that you write applies for category:Wikipedians by religion too. Why not delete all those categories and its subcategories e.g. category:Christian Wikipedians and re-name them into Category:Wikipedians interested in religion and category:Wikipedians interested in Christianity? Andries 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd support that. VegaDark 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And rename category:Canadian Wikipedians into category:Wikipedians interested in Canada I welcome consistency and fairness. Andries 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We allow for some basic demographic information, which stuff like that falls under, and I'm sure others would argue "by religion" categories fall under that as well (although I personally think "by religion" should be renamed to "interested in", as noted above). VegaDark 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Former religion is also quite basic. Andries 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I suppose the consensus of this UCFD will determine that. VegaDark 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I support VegaDark's mass-rename proposal, but think it should be done for all usercats at the same time. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I concede that "former <religion>" may be useful for collaboration, however, so would former residents of some location or former fans of some sports team. I don't think any of these is a good idea to begin categorising by. We would duplicate every sub-cat of Category:Wikipedians. (Formerly interested in television, formerly a cyclist, etc.) I strongly oppose the mass rename suggestion to "interested in". - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who used to be Catholics[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who used to be Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. We do not need such categories ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per below. Andries 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue, I know a lot about my former religions. Andries 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Non-collaborative, and a "not" category. Does not effectively use the user category system.--WaltCip 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't a "not" usercat. Everyone is not a former Catholic. Xiner (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another not category. Personally I don't believe anyone ever escapes anyway. Barfbagger 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but the correct term is "recovering Catholic". This category is not divisive or harmful in any way, but its deletion is harmful. That the category is "non-collaborative" is a silly argument, because almost all user categories are non-collaborative. People don't use user categories to collaborate; we've developed a richly structured system of WikiProjects for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who used to follow Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Do not think these type of categories are needed. ("not" category). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba and Category:Former_Scientologists, category:former Muslims exists too.

it is not a "not" category like category:atheist Wikipedians category:non-Catholic Wikipedians Wikipedians]] (not theist) but a "former" category. It cannot be fairly equated to a "not" category like category:Non-Catholic Wikipedians Andries 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No really. An atheist is not necessarily a person that once believed in God and now does not, rather, an Atheist is a person that does not believe in God. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree, bad example. Andries 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If Wikipedians can classify themselves for a particular religion then I think they can also classify themselves for former religions. See category:Wikipedians by former religion Andries 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration, could be considered a "not" category. VegaDark 01:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue, I know a lot about Catholicism and Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. VegaDark 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Former_Scientologists, and Category:critics of Sathya Sai Baba are for notable critics, not for Wikipedians. Wikipedian's categories are designed to entice collaboration. These are not "userboxes". You could create Category: Wikipedians interested in Sai Baba, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Your proposed alternative category names are somewhat unusual until now. Andries 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am just following common practice pertaining user catgs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because being a former one of these seems to be more unusual or notable than say being a former Methodist or something.--T. Anthony 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different, how? Are we know in the business of making assessments about different religions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's newer and devoted to a living person. Someone who has been a member might have a perspective on this guy that could either be useful or biased, which can matter on articles concerning him. No living Methodist could have known Wesley or the founders of the faith. Granted this could seem like cross-purposes on my placing Category:Critics of Sathya Sai Baba on CfD. However categories refer to articles, not editors, and are about how Wikipedians choose to identify them. So the potential for misuse is greater. Still maybe I was wrong and if a person wants to identify themselves as a former Methodist that should also be their right. (Although I think that's less useful)--T. Anthony 09:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If users wish to identify themselves as such, and have no problem with being identified, this does not seem to be a problem. Simply stating that a user no longer follows a certain belief system, etc. does not connotate a positive or negative inherent experience. Smee 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ex-anythings are not notable. They should say what they are now if they need to express.Barfbagger 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over-categorization, divisive. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per my comments under Wikipedians by former religion - jc37 08:31, 25 April 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 Rename G6 - housekeeping. - jc37 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon Collaborative Project members -> Category:WikiProject Pokémon members

Speedy Rename as nominator. The Project has changed its name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. --NThurston 13:34, 23 April 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 Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians. - jc37 09:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists to Category:Wikipedian pastafarians

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are referred to as Pastafarians, as per the article. CA387 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would just like to point out that, should there be a name change, "Pastafarian Wikipedians" would be a much more correct UC name change than "Wikipedian pastafarians".--Ramdrake 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. It doesn't explain much about the context but then I suppose neither does the present name. I favour the change on grounds of simplicity. Sam Blacketer 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep current name as a redirect. As creator of the category, I am of two minds about it: while "Pastafarians" is indeed reported by several sources as being the correct term, I find it less descriptive than its alternatve. Maybe creating a redirect from one of those two names two the other so as to catch both alternatives would be best? I also just wanted to point out this is a user category, not a namespace category.--Ramdrake 12:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also concerned that leaving only the name "Pastafarians" may lead someone to think it's a typo and speedy-merge it with "Rastafarians"... Not good!--Ramdrake 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then should it not be Category:Wikipedian pastafarians? Sam Blacketer 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As it's a user category, then yes. CA387 12:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As, it is a sub of Category:Wikipedians by religion, I used the same naming format as the rest of the sub-categories in this category. The naming style is consistent with all other entries in this category. "Wikipedian pastafarians" would use a different naming style.--Ramdrake 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia:User categories for discussion then?--T. Anthony 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so.--Ramdrake 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Definitely; move the discussion to WP:UCFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by religion, and do not leave current name as a redirect, as current name has no indication it is a user category. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per VegaDark. --CA387 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we then have Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians as a redirect? I would like to ensure nobody mistakes "Pastafarians" for a misspelled "Rastafarians"--Ramdrake 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then simply make that clear in the category introduction. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 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, but allow for a properly named category that facilitates collaboration to be created in the future, if someone wishes to do so. VegaDark 04:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User standards compliant - If kept, it should have a rename to clarify intent. - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to ? - jc37 07:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are two things wrong with this category. The first is the name. It starts with "User", making it in the babel category system. This definitely does not need to be in this. Secondly, the category is for users who "believe in compliance with W3C standards". My question is, who cares? Believing that people should comply with W3C standards is not a defining characteristic of users, and we should not group such users together in a category, as it would be useless. What possible article could such users be expected to collaborate on? If kept, needs a rename, but there is no rename that would both be in the spirit of the category creation and be useful for collaboration. VegaDark 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ??? Shouldn't a lack of consensus over a long period of time default to keep? If not, relist yet again for continuity lest I copy and paste what I typed below in response to VegaDark. –Pomte 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not when a "no consensus" results in keeping a category which still obviously needs a rename at minimum, so I'd support relisting in such cases, or perhaps just being bold and changing it. VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. No consensus = feel free to re-nominate. I just didn't want to relist again. Multiple relistings tend to lead to confusion. So instead I started semi-fresh with a renomination. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category population has doubled to 8 since I made it known at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming (though perhaps they found it some other way). They can collaborate on the 61 articles in Category:W3C standards, but I doubt it. Either delete or rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the World Wide Web Consortium under Category:Wikipedians by interest. –Pomte 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see what this particular category has to do with furthering the goals of this project? At the very least, rename to Wikipedians who support W3C compliance or something similar, but I'm not sure if this particular cat serves any project-related purpose. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a singularly pointless category. Please delete it. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 30 April 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:Wikipedians interested in New York. VegaDark 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY - Renomination. While all relevant discussion is welcome, I'd like the question of whether WP:IAR should be invoked for the existance of this category being named in variation to the rest of the Category:Wikipedians by interest sub-cats. Note that the related article I love New York was boldly moved, and the resulting discussion for moving it back resulted in "No consensus", so it currently resides at I love New York. - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No comment for now, - in the hopes of fostering discussion : ) - jc37 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. I just realized we don't even need to categorize Wikipedians who "love" New York, under any name, so the naming discussion is moot (to me). What articles can we expect Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians who ♥ NY to collaborate on that we wouldn't expect Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedians interested in New York to collaborate on? I Love New York? I'd say each could be expected to collaborate on that, and even if not, one extra article is not enough to justify an entire subcategory. What added benefit would we have with this subcategory? None that I can see. VegaDark 07:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York per VegaDark because we're a dry conventional bunch. –Pomte 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ROFL - speak for yourself : p - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! The people want it. Those two at least. Why must we dictate to them? What policy reason, I ask you, is there to disturb this whimsical cat? -- Y not? 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in New York. That heart character is also hideous. —ptk✰fgs 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Does no harm; no reason to not let people use it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Pomte. The heart symbol is nearly impossible to reproduce on a standard keyboard without copy-and-paste. Please disregard the WP:HARMLESS and the WP:ILIKEIT keeps.--WaltCip 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:HARMLESS refers explicitly to articles. These user categories are not in the article space, not part of the encyclopedia, and are subject to entirely different standards. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow... WP:HARMLESS? They have a shortcut for that? I am yearning for the days when most things were redlinked and the only shortcut anyone used in argument was WP:V -- Y not? 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Obvious duplicate. Xiner (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Duplication. Barfbagger 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No dictates. SchmuckyTheCat 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY.--WaltCip 15:19, 25 April 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. VegaDark 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fwarn recipients - Seems unnecessary, and I can't see how this makes anybody's job easier. I do a lot of vandalblocking, and I certainly never patrol this category. – Riana ^ऋ 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Have to agree with the nominator on this one. I don't see how the category could be of any use unless the category was automatically removed by a bot once 2 hours or so have passed, or once the user has been blocked. That way people could patrol the category for recent vandals who need to be blocked if they vandalize again. But, since that doesn't happen, this category is useless (and even if that did happen, the category would probably need a rename to be more clear). VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What next, "Third-warning recipients"? Xiner (talk) 17:40, 24 April 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 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:You forgot Poland - If anyone has more insight to this than "Huh?", please enlighten me : ) - jc37 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral due to being uninformed, mostly. - jc37 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See You forgot Poland. So is this a serious nomination or not? --  Netsnipe  ►  16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete joke, serves no practical purpose. YechielMan 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My first reaction on coming across a number of maintenance categories has been "Huh?"; my second has frequently been "It is not worth the trouble to CfD this, I'll just leave it be". My brief glances into Category:Wikipedians and its subcategories suggest many such categories also lurk there. This one seems to me to be causing no more of a disturbance than any of those – and much less than some. On the other hand, as YechielMan points out it serves no practical purpose – Gurch 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The word "Comment" in bold text was applied to my above comment, and I have removed it. While this is a wiki, I would appreciate it if my comments were not refactored in a way that obscures their meaning. If I post here, it means that I wish to engage in constructive discussion; my opinion cannot necessarily be distilled down to a single word in bold text at the beginning of the line. In this instance, the arbitrary labelling of my post as "Comment" is particularly misleading as it suggests I have no opinion on the continued existence of the category, and was merely supplying information. This is incorrect; the closest approximation to my opinion that could be achieved with the usual bolded wording is "weak keep", but I refuse to use such 'labels'. That way, I can rest assured that someone needing to know my opinion (such as a closing administrator) will have actually read my comment – Gurch 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoa, calm down : ) - You left off the leading asterisk, to begin with, and typically, unless responding to someone else's comments, nearly every comment leads with some variation on "support/oppose/comment". Rest assured that "comment" does not equal "Neutral". I do not just "count votes", and it's been my experience that the other regular closers here do not either. That said, there is no "mandate" to include support/comment/whatever, so feel free to decline. In any case, my apologies if my minor cleanup offended you : ) - jc37 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oop. I never intended this to be a serious thing, was only planning to pop it onto my userpage for a day or so, and then take it off. Didn't notice anybody had created a category page for it. Can't speak for the other category members, but I believe this has outlived the joke (and probably isn't worth any more attention, at that). – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Luna Santin. Probably did outlive the joke...~ Giggy! _Talk 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Funny, but the user category system is intended for serious use. VegaDark 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure? Would you care to explain the "serious use" of Category:Chaotic Good Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians who play practical jokes, Category:Wikipedians who have been arrested, Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 5, Category:Wikipedians concerned about their weight, Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa, Category:Wikipedians and Potato Skins ... I could go on all day – Gurch 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'd support deletion of all those categories (except possibly Wikipedians who have been arrested, as a category identifying users who have unique knowledge of the arrest process and could possibly collaborate on related articles). VegaDark 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the erdros one resulted in a keep (though the higher numbers were at risk, at the time). Santa isn't a "joke" category. And ask User:Mike Selnker about the chaotic good one : ) - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm well aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is why I wasn't using those categories as an argument to keep this one. I was using those pages as an argument against VegaDark's claim that user categories are intended for serious use – Gurch 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree - the burden of proof is on those who claim that user categories are helpful for collaboration, and that there's therefore a point in telling others what they can and can't do with them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The harmless argument that you are providing in a variety of UCFDs is invalid, since it establishes precedence to create a wave of other redundant categories, which is not the purpose that UCFD serves.--WaltCip 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And what purpose does UCFD serve? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Categorization of Wikipedians into categories where they can easily communicate and collaborate each other on a specific topic inside the article space. THIS category does not serve that purpose.--WaltCip 10:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any evidence that user categories are used for collaboration? I ask because WikiProjects are certainly useful for collaboration, but I'm not at all convinced that user categories are. Membership in a project says something about what you do; membership in a category says something about what you feel you are. One is about working on the project; the other isn't. WikiProjects have a history of creating featured articles; user categories have a history of being abused for vote-stacking attempts.

  Because, as far as I can tell, user categories are not used for collaboration, then it makes no sense to make restrictions on user categories except to protect the project. Thus, blatantly divisive or offensive categories have to be removed, but deleting harmless ones is an arbitrary exercise of power that has no benefit to the project, and tends to alienate editors who like silly user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  One could in fact argue that silly user categories should be deleted precisely because they might attract people who intend to do little other than use silly user cateogries – in much the same way that userboxes and more recently "guestbooks" are frowned upon by many. While userpages get removed per "Wikipedia is not MySpace" every day, I don't see any evidence that user cateogries are contributing to the issue – unlike userboxes and guestbooks, which definitely do. That's not to say they aren't, of course, but if any are, I imagine it's more likely that they're well-used user categories that happen to be for irrelevant things, as opposed to these joke categories – Gurch 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  User categories, not being very decorative-looking, contribute very little to the MySpace-ifying of Wikipedia. I don't see evidence that frivilous user categories attract MySpace-type behavior - I've seen plenty of evidence that userboxes do precisely that. Ideological user categories (as opposed to the harmless, silly ones) are a whole other kettle of fish - they contribute actively to the politicizing of Wikipedia, which is much worse than MySpacey behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Joke template. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 24 April 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 No consenses - jc37 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not aid in collaboration, and seems like a purely nonsense category. Blast ^{[improve me]} 21.04.07 0403 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Blast ^{[improve me]} 21.04.07 0403 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Was planning on nominating this myself. No potential for collaboration by categorizing users into this category. VegaDark 06:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Strong keep. It's not a nonsense category, you would be surprised at the number of people who pursue this as a serious hobby and there are many websites devoted to it.[5],[6], [7],[8],[9],for just a few. However, it is debatable whether it is a category for collaboration. If there are acceptable categories for baseball or cigarette card collectors then it should be kept. Barfbagger 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed WP:BASH I think that some of the pro-deletion entries are relying too heavily on WP:ILIKEIT as justification. Barfbagger 10:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Personally, I think the other "Wikipedians who collect" categories should be deleted as well. (there are only 4 or 5 other ones). And they should be converted to "interested in". In this case, however, I don't see how a category would help facilitate collaboration on more than a single article, so a category is not needed. VegaDark 07:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what would really facilitate collaboration? A relevant WikiProject. I'm waiting to see any evidence at all that any user category facilitates collaboration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'd also support deleting other "Wikipedians who collect" categories. PeaceNT 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Strong Delete per Barfbagger's reasoning, but also per VegaDark per VegaDark and WP:ILIKEIT votes.--WaltCip 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN Barfbagger, you crack me up! YechielMan 06:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - And only because, amazingly enough, there are references for it, per Barfbagger. - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not my cup of tea, but it is possible that this category could aid collaboration. I would argue against Category:Wikipedians who collect used airsickness bags, however. Colonel Tom 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're all behind you on that one.Barfbagger 20:27, 24 April 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 - For those interested, see also: Wikipedia:Userboxes#Category inclusion. - jc37 07:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not help Wikipedia in any way to categorize users in to this category. Looks to have been created simply for the sake of associating it with the userbox. VegaDark 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't serve as a useful category.--WaltCip 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but I object if there are ever more than three people in the category. SchmuckyTheCat 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense category. Naconkantari 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there is an exit. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Does no harm, no reason to delete. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does no harm, does no good, does not contribute positively. No reason to keep. Colonel Tom 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why keep any user categories that don't relate directly to collaboration? Once we're letting people play with user categories, what's the justification drawing any lines short of harm to the project? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not persuaded that user categories that don't assist collaboration are worthwhile. I do acknowledge, however, that some categories can make some kind of a positive contribution to, if you like, the spiritual wellbeing of wikipedians. How do I determine which categories do? I use my sometimes flawed, but always well-intentioned judgement, as I assume other editors do. If I didn't give some credence to the intangible benefits of some categories, I'd have suggested 'delete' for a lot more categories nominated on this page. This category doesn't meet my definition of a useful contribution, hence my suggesting 'delete'.Colonel Tom 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, if there are people wanting to use the category, which is admittedly not harmful, then what does it do to their spiritual well-being to be told, "no, you can't do that" based on someone else's well-intentioned judgment? That sounds like an active damage being done for no tangible benefit. I don't see the value in what appears to those affected as an arbitary exercise of power, making Wikipedia a less pleasant experience for them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quite a popular UCfD though. Xiner (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we expect to see alternating "Delete, no reason to keep" and "Keep, no reason to delete" comments on every discussion here from this point forward? If so, might I suggest that the two sides get in touch with each other beforehand and agree to mutually withhold an equal number of such comments? That way, the opinions of those who actually have a point to make will be clearer. Myself? Neutral, no reason to be otherwise, of course – Gurch 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is the problem. These decisions aren't being made according to any guideline or consensus gained after wide participation. It's just a bunch of people who say "I don't like it" and then delete what they don't like. It really doesn't matter what any persons individual opinion is, what matters are Wikipedia policies, and there simply aren't any about user categories that support these actions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:42, 24 April 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 Speedily deleted as intentional WP:POINT violation. Naconkantari 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Obviously not needed. No encyclopedic benefit to categorize users by this characteristic. Looks like it was created as a WP:POINT violation to me. VegaDark 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as nominator. VegaDark 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep my category. You fail. This is a sub-category of Wikipedians by religion. Are you claiming my religion is invalid? (The state of Washington recognizes marriages I've performed as a religious leader, are you claiming Wikipedia know more about the validity of religion than a government entity who is required to make that distinction?) Or maybe I'm lying about what my religion is, are user categories required to be truthful? SchmuckyTheCat 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please avoid WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Blast 20.04.07 1327 (UTC)

Anymoreso than "IDONTLIKEIT" nominations? SchmuckyTheCat 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Yes, user categories are required to be truthful, or at the very least, not patent nonsense. I can't believe that people are keeping this under the misguidance that it's "harmless."--WaltCip 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Is that any more nonsense than Wikipedians who believe in Santa?--Ramdrake 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • More so. DEFINITELY more so.--WaltCip 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you verify that user categories are truthful? Are you going to start asking everyone in Category:Jewish Wikipedians to prove it? How preposterous, it is impossible to verify truth in user categories. SchmuckyTheCat 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is obviously a reference to Gulliver's Travels but hardly a starting point for a collaboration. Barfbagger 06:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think, just because I can, I'm going to stay neutral on this one. I have to admit thought, I am having several fits of irony thinking about those who butter their bread the butter side down : ) - jc37 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POINT in practice.--WaltCip 10:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is the harm of having user categories that show a little originality and humour, rather than being just drably descriptive? Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, but I see it as possibly counter-productive to remove everything (in this case categories) that show people actually have a sense of humour and like having fun while they're working on the project. Just my twopence' worth.--Ramdrake 12:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are organized projects of humor - see WP:RA. Go to those if you want to seek humor. Utterly unencyclopedic and random categories are deleted daily. In fact, unencyclopedic and random anything - see WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:AFD, WP:STFD, WP:MFD, etc - are deleted.--WaltCip 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also like to add that there's no way to collaborate about a specific topic using this UC, which is what the system is supposed to provide.--WaltCip 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to comment You're making my point, actually, that we are lacking a place for humour and orginality in Wikipedia except in well-organized projects. Reminds me of the ST:Voyager episode where Seven of Nine had neatly organized one hour of "Fun" into the daily routine of ex-Borg children, oblivious to the fact that "fun" can hardly be planned. Here, if you must, may I then suggest we make a supercategory of Humorous Categories of Wikipedians and that this UC be moved to a subcategory of these? Or is it just that Wikpedia is too serious to entertain a degree of self-derision? Why must every category be utilitarian? I'd hate to think it was this bad.--Ramdrake 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be a better proposal, if not a total sandbox.--WaltCip 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Ramdrake. Ex-Nintendo Employee 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - you can't have a WP:DISRUPT violation unless there's actual disruption going on. Milto LOL pia 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it does not aid in collaboration. This is an encyclopedia gosh darn it, not some coffee clutch. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not helpful to the encyclopedia, and appears to be a WP:DISRUPT creation (the fact that the creator of the category declared that the nominator "fails" is all the evidence needed for that, really). --Coredesat 20:48, 20 April 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 Split into two categories. I did a fair amount of reading, both of the article and it's talk page, and several related pages. I also found it interesting that Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names specifically noted GNU/Linux naming controversy. The most important factor (to me) was that Linux is now apparently used on some handheld devices without GNU, and GNU exists on EMACS without Linux. So I'll create both:

• Category:Wikipedians who use Linux
• Category:Wikipedians who use GNU

Anyone in both can presume GNU/Linux, otherwise, this allows for choice. Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux will be depopulated and deleted, since there is no way that we can know which of the two new categories a specific Wikipedian wishes to be in, I'll leave it up to each Wikipedian. I'm also going to depopulate and delete the current Category:Wikipedians who use Linux (concerns about the copy/paste creation, among other things). I'm also going to remove the categories from existing userboxes, with a link to this discussion, and a note to add whichever of the two is appropriate. - jc37 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Linux.

• "GNU/Linux" is a disputed alternate name for the operating system that was named Linux by the people who started the project. This category was originally merged from "Category:Linux users" and "Category:GNU/Linux users". The two should never have been merged under this title, which seems to endorse a particular side in this dispute. AlistairMcMillan 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  AlistairMcMillan needs a history lesson: The GNU project was started in 1983. Linux is name for one kernel most frequently used by the GNU system and it's a popular moniker taken by distributions of this system. In any case, GNU was the name given to the GNU system by the people who started it. There are other GNU system variants such as NexentaOS which do not use the Linux kernel. NexentaOS is almost totally indistinguishable from an Ubuntu desktop, yet there is no Linux at all inside it. This is because the user experience is overwhelmingly driven by the GNU system, while the kernel plays a background role. Debian GNU/kfreebsd is likewise another functional GNU system which does not use Linux and yet works like a regular debian system. Yes there are arguments about using "Linux" as a short hand name of the system, but few informed people would argue that "GNU/Linux" is not a more accurate and complete name. The opposition is largely built around it being a mouthful, and somewhat confusing to new people.

  Naming argument aside, this category under the name "Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux" was used by many userboxes since their inception. AlistairMcMillian went around agressively changing these userboxes [10], long after the Category:Wikipedians who use Linux was deleted via CFD. --Gmaxwell 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The userboxes used this category because the others had been deleted. And the "Category:Wikipedians who use Linux" wasn't deleted via CFD, it was created as a redirect and then deleted for being empty after another user "aggressively" changed all the userboxes to point to "Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux".

  About the name: why do you keep referring to "NexentaOS" when the true name can only be "GNU/NexentaOS"? Linux is named after the guy who started it, Linus Torvalds. When asked whether the operating system should be referred to as "GNU/Linux" he said "calling Linux in general GNU/Linux I think is just ridiculous". See GNU/Linux naming controversy for more. AlistairMcMillan 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also when you say "the user experience is overwhelmingly driven by the GNU system", don't you mean the X Windows/Gnome/KDE system? I think they have quite a bit to do with the user experience being the user interfaces that most people interact with. Perhaps by your reasoning the category should be renamed "Category:Wikipedians who use X Windows/Gnome/KDE/Linux"? AlistairMcMillan 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What? No, that's an utter non sequitur. Straw men aren't helping to prove your "point". Nobody calls it "X Windows/Gnome/KDE/Linux". --Cyde Weys 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename, "GNU/Linux" is the correct name for the combination of GNU (the entire operating system minus the kernel) plus Linux (the kernel). You aren't going to get very far at all using just "Linux" without the rest of the operating system. Look around at all of the essential software on any modern Linux system; you'll find that most of it is GNU. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry what do you mean by "the entire operating system"? Is the XWindows software from the GNU project? Is Samba from the GNU project? How about Apache or Gnome or KDE or Firefox or a hundred other packages that are standard parts of the Linux? AlistairMcMillan 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you know what an operating system is? Everything you just mentioned are not part of the operating system. Apache is a webserver, Gnome/KDE are graphical windowing environments, and Firefox is a web browser. None are essential for getting the basic system working (and indeed, I'm running two GNU/Linux servers right now that lack everything you just mentioned except for Apache). --Cyde Weys 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's debatable what constitutes the operating system. I agree with Cyde here, except as far as I'm concerned, GNOME or KDE (or another similar desktop environment) are part of the operating system, as I wouldn't use a system that didn't have one. However, AlistairMcMillan is implying GNOME isn't part of GNU, but it is - see the GNOME 'about' page. Guyjohnston 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a simple fact that right now the GNU/Linux article is a redirect and the operating system article is titled Linux. Pretending there is no controversy surrounding the "GNU/Linux" name is just simply dishonest. I'm frankly stunned that established editors are suggesting that "GNU/Linux" is the definitive name. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename and don't merge. UCFD isn't the proper place to determine the proper name. Users who feel passionately about one name or the other can put themselves where they want to be. SchmuckyTheCat 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is only one category right now. I tried to separate into two, but Gmaxwell reverted. AlistairMcMillan 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I suppose the one that is a redirect should be removed as a redirect so users can deal with it as their preference. SchmuckyTheCat 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. I agree that 'GNU/Linux' is the correct name for the whole operating system, and I use that name myself, but I think another category should be created for all the people who choose to call it 'Linux'. Guyjohnston 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any chance of building consensus around having both then? I would much prefer having both to renaming, but that option seems to be strongly opposed. AlistairMcMillan 19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rename - per GNU/Linux naming controversy. - jc37 07:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note the article about the operating system is at Linux and GNU/Linux is a redirect. AlistairMcMillan 09:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (common name for the OS, and used by our article) or to something else, or split into several categories. "GNU/Linux" is a controversial minority point of view term, and usage of it should be avoided in a neutral encyclopedia. Prolog 12:49, 23 April 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 No consensus to delete. Rename to Category:Wikipedians who like spicy food - jc37 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic benefit, food category which we have historically deleted. VegaDark 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. VegaDark 10:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if all no encyclopedic benefit categories were to be deleted there would be very little left. Wikipedians who drive cars?, Wikipedians who are martial artists? Wikipedians interested in breweries? Barfbagger 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Food categories are deleted based on precedent. And strike the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS vote.--WaltCip 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the wishes of 550 users who've put themselves in it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Above user lists self in various other redundant and uninformative user categories, which should also be deleted per precedent.--WaltCip 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What does my user page have to do with ignoring the wishes of 550 other users? SchmuckyTheCat 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Invalid keep reasoning. Every category brought to UCFD will have users in the category, or else it would have been speedyable. Furthermore, I'd bet 95+% of the users in the category are in it due to a userbox. VegaDark 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Who cares how they got there? They chose to be there. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Still invalid keep reasoning. Many categories before have been deleted that consisted of over thousands of users.--WaltCip 10:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There are plenty of articles for these users to collaborate on. –Pomte 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "hot food" could mean spicy food or warm food, it is unclear. Either way, either of those would be too broad for collaboration IMO, and at minimum should be reworded. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all to know "who likes" certian food. VegaDark 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename - I removed my original argument as un-Wikipedian. However, strike nom's orginal vote per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Agree that hot is ambiguous. Propose rename to Wkipedian's interested in spicy food. This goes beyond a mere single food type preference but covers a range that many users have an interest in.Barfbagger 05:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Unencyclopedic" is a reasonable reason to delete a user category, as the main focus for user categories are to help build an encyclopedia. We don't need a user category to violate a policy to delete it, we just need it to not help Wikipedia to delete it. VegaDark 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And just to add, I'd consider your proposed Category:Wikipedians interested in spicy food infinitely better than the current name, however I still say delete as being too broad for collaboration. Also "spicy" is subjective, what is spicy to some may not be spicy to others. VegaDark 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is recommended that "Unencyclopedic" is not an argument to be used for justification. The subjectivity of "spicy" is immaterial as most definitions invloving human activity have a window of inclusiveness. As for the category being too broad this is also not an argument. People have general interests on a topic without having to narrowly define it and defining it too rigidly excludes many others. Admittedly some food topics are too narrow - individual foodstuffs or brands for example - but I contend that an interest in spicy food per se is sufficiently compartmentalised to warrant a category. Barfbagger 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - Presumably an all-inclusive category. (Doesn't everyone cook their food? : ) - If kept, it needs a rename to clarify that "spicy" is meant. - jc37 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have already proposed a rename. Barfbagger 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't support the idea of a rename : ) - jc37 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename if necessary to Wikipedians who like spicy food, although I find it already obvious that "hot" in this case does not refer to food temperature (never met yet someone who doesn't like a warm meal).--Ramdrake 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no potential for encyclopedic collaboration. Picaroon 03:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Does no harm; no reason to delete. User categories aren't used for encyclopedic collaboration anyway. That's what Wikiprojects are for. As far as I can tell, user categories are just for fun, so why tell people what they can and can't do unless they're being divisive/inflammatory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, userbox syndrome, not conducive to collaboration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 24 April 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 no consensus, I recommend a group nom for all "ancestry" categories if nominated in the future. VegaDark 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with parent category, Category:Greek Wikipedians. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 05:18Z

• Speedy Merge because of redundancy. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are several "ancestry" categories and the argument has previously been made that having Greek ancestry is not the same as being Greek. That being said, however, I don't see the benefit that any "ancestry" categories would provide and I would support deleting them all, reason being that just because someone is of a specific ancestry does not mean they can reasonably be expected to collaborate on topics relating to their ancestry. VegaDark 07:57, 12 April 2007
• Comment - I disagree with this notion. Wikipedia is a place where any type of information can be found and if someone wants to find someone with Greek ancestry for any reason, Wiki should be the place they look. It is pointless to delete such a category.Knea2006 1:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is a place where any type of information can be found" - what you're leaving out is: "...in an article." (And these days, "notability" may be a question, as well.) - In any case, your rationale is contrary to: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. - jc37 10:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These users possess a sufficiently distinct attribute for them to hold a varying take on Greek-related articles. –Pomte 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because someone is of a particular ancestry does not imply that they would be more able to contribute to such articles, IMO. You can choose your interests, but you can't choose your ancestry. VegaDark 01:05, 19 April 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 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep you can have Greek heritage without being Greek. SchmuckyTheCat 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above user. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:43, 20 April 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 to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active. VegaDark 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active, their is no need for a separate category just for exams. Tellyaddict^Talk 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge As nominator.Tellyaddict^Talk 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just delete it. The amount of time someone is inactive for due to taking an exam is so short that it isn't even worth the user adding themselves to this category. VegaDark 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Speak for yourself, almighty VegaDark. Some people spend weeks straight on exams, with exam periods every other month. –Pomte 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Tellyaddict and Pomte. bibliomaniac15 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This gives more specificity than the indefinite "not currently active". - jc37 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge − this is overspecificity, jc37. We have an article Category:Wikipedian Colorado Avalanche fans, but it would be useless to create Category:Wikipedians Joe Sakic fans − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. Useless cat. AW 14:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Needless specifics. PeaceNT 08:52, 21 April 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:Wikipedians who like Star Trek - jc37 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No indication it is a Wikipedian category, so it needs a rename at minimum, but I don't see how it would be much different than the already existing Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek, so I'd say merge. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek as nominator. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek per nom. (Staying out of the trekkie/trekker debate, as its unneeded for categorisation purposes.) - jc37 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek per nom. –Pomte 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek per nom. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek per nom. Barfbagger 19:36, 20 April 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 No consensus - jc37 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary overcategorization. Are we prepared to have a "who likes" category for every aspect of the Star Trek universe? VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek as nominator. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - This is a setting in several episodes of different series, and novels. It's a whole other universe, and not that far different than saying it's a mini-series within the Star Trek milieu. - jc37 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's the setting for several episodes, but the same could be said for Kronos, Vulcan, Section 31, Bajor, etc. etc., and a category for each would be allowable if the criteria for a star trek category is "a setting in several episodes of different series, and novels". VegaDark 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, upmerge as overcategorisation. Especially if the categories for fans of each series merge as proposed below, this one would clearly have to go too; but even if not, the case for keeping it is too weak. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Unnecessary" is subjective. Users have decided they like this category by putting themselves in it. There's no reason to ignore that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that "unnecessary" is subjective. That's why we are on UCFD to determine if there is a consensus that agrees with me. In either case, "People have put themselves in the category" is the worst UCFD reasoning I have seen to date. VegaDark 01:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "overcategorization" is a reason not to have mainspace categories. These are userspace categories. This discussion goes beyond any prescription in WP:USER to make any decision whatsoever. SchmuckyTheCat 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh my, the main star trek category proposed as a merge has more than 700 users, way too full. If anything this entire area is undercategorized. SchmuckyTheCat 01:53, 21 April 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:Wikipedians who like Star Trek - jc37 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of unnecessary overcategorization per above nom. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek as nominator. VegaDark 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek per nom. - jc37 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek per nom. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Unnecessary" is subjective. Users have decided they like this category by putting themselves in it. There's no reason to ignore that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that "unnecessary" is subjective. That's why we are on UCFD to determine if there is a consensus that agrees with me. In either case, "People have put themselves in the category" is the worst UCFD reasoning I have seen to date. VegaDark 01:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Further, "overcategorization" is a reason not to have mainspace categories. These are userspace categories. This discussion goes beyond any prescription in WP:USER to make any decision whatsoever. SchmuckyTheCat 02:32, 20 April 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 Rename per caps. - jc37 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case Issues

• Category:WikiProject Airports Participants -> Category:WikiProject Airports participants
• Category:WikiProject American football Members -> Category:WikiProject American football members
• Category:WikiProject Colombia Members -> Category:WikiProject Colombia members
• Category:WikiProject London Transport Participants -> Category:WikiProject London Transport participants
• Category:WikiProject Spam Members -> Category:WikiProject Spam members
• Category:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation Members -> Category:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation members
• Category:WikiProject Universities Participants -> Category:WikiProject Universities participants
• Category:WikiProject Walt Disney World Participants -> Category:WikiProject Walt Disney World participants

Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 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: rename all (I changed "Wikiproject Hong Kong" to "WikiProject Hong Kong").--Mike Selinker 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following cases are the same as discussed in #W b W renaming below:

• Category:Wikipedians participating in Wikiproject Hong Kong -> Category:WikiProject Hong Kong participants
• Category:Wikipedians who are members of WikiProject The Apprentice UK -> Category:WikiProject The Apprentice UK members

• Category:WikiProject Gridiron in Australia Members -> Category:WikiProject Gridiron in Australia members
• Category:WikiProject NCSU Members -> Category:WikiProject NCSU members
• Category:WikiProject That '70s Show Participants -> Category:WikiProject That '70s Show participants

*Category:WikiProject Munich Members -> Category:WikiProject Munich members Speedy Merge as nom. --NThurston 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw as cat has been deleted. --NThurston 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename as nom. --NThurston 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom for now, but hopefully we will come to a consensus on a new convention for these soon. VegaDark 00:13, 19 April 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 Speedy Merge per creator request. - jc37 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think América is a better team than yours

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Club América

The current convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams would seem to be "Wikipedian <team> fans", so Merge both to: Category:Wikipedian Club América fans. (Presuming the accurate name of the team is Club América.) Note: The first cat is currently a "redirect" (but not a category redirect) to the second cat. - jc37 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both as nominator. - jc37 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both as "creator" of the categories. I am sorry I didn't follow the guidelines, I am still learning. - Hari Seldon 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to apologise. You seem to have meant for the best. I'm just glad that you were spared Rouge admin interaction : ) - jc37 06:28, 17 April 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 Rename to Category:Wikipedian video game developers. This allows for the profession concerns, while removing the problematic word "programmer". - jc37 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedian game programmers to Category:Wikipedians interested in game development - All but one of the category's members is already in the latter category. I don't think that there is a need to make a distinction between the categories in this case. (See also the nomination to rename the latter cat below.) - jc37 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - as nominator. - jc37 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is what separates the fans and idle dreamers from the professionals, who presumably have a different grasp on article content. As an analogy, think about merging Wikipedian physicists to Wikipedians interested in physics. Rename to Category:Wikipedian video game programmers. –Pomte 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedian programmers, but unlike the last time this category existed, make it a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by profession, and don't associate it with any of the programming language userboxes. I think there is an important distinction between people who actually program and people simply interested in game development, but I don't think we need a category for each type of software a programmer could be working on (games, in this case). VegaDark 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't the category last deleted for being too general? People who add themselves to this probably won't know it's meant only for professional programmers, which is hard enough to distinguish (do you have to work for a well-known programming company, can you start your own programming company, do you just need to get paid for programming for someone, etc). Game programming is a good enough distinction, I think, since there are people interested in it. –Pomte 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the last one was renamed to Category:Wikipedians by programming language (and depopulated) since that's what it essentially was last time. I think the category could exist as a "by profession" type category, though. Perhaps you are right that it would be too general, but I think "game" programmers could be too specific. Do we want a category for "accounting software" programmers? "word processing software" programmers? VegaDark 00:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the problem with that from a Wikipedia standpoint: It's all-inclusive. - Speaking as one who removed most if not all of the programmer categories from innumerable userboxes, one such was WikiText. Depending on how one defines it, even simply knowing to add the 4 tildes makes you a programmer. Not to mention all the wannabe xml, java script, and visual basic programmers out there. Unless we want to permantently watchdog the cat, we'll likely have confusion, disruption, and simply just upset people. I think we're better off not creating such a cat. - jc37 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, that's a good point, I was thinking more along the lines that the category would be used for people who program as their job. Too be honest I'm not sure what to do about this cat then, perhaps merging is a better option. VegaDark 02:45, 19 April 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 Rename all per the adjusted nomination. - jc37 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Trek DS9 Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Rename Category:Trek ENT Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Enterprise

Rename Category:Trek NF Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Frontier

Rename Category:Trek TAS Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Animated Series

Rename Category:Trek TNG Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Next Generation

Rename Category:Trek TOS Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Original Series

Rename Category:Trek VOY Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Voyager

• Rename as nominator. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Any renaming done to this category should apply to the other subcategories in Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek as well. –Pomte 19:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, you're right. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Rename Category:Trek DS9 Wikipedians to Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine per Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and conventions of Category:Wikipedians interested in science fiction and Category:Wikipedians interested in television. And I too would like to see the rest of the subcats nominated. : ) - jc37 23:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all now that I know more about Star Trek than I've ever wanted to. –Pomte 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as nominated. I'll also throw out the idea of upmerging all to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek. I've seen every episode of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, and I don't particularly think that a category for each series is all that necessary. VegaDark 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - per adjusted nomination. - jc37 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, upmerge all, BUT at the same time someone who understands parsing must amend User:UBX/Star_Trek_series, as that page contains the code which puts people with various userboxes into the above categories. This way, people can still choose a userbox for a specific series if they like, but all will go in the one category. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The categories are sufficiently populated for me to oppose upmerging. The parent is the least useful of the bunch due to its size, and could be downmerged if not for the fact that someone could like the entire series. –Pomte 13:45, 17 April 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 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miscellaneous Wikipedian categories - How is this different than Category:Wikipedians? - jc37 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 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 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from the suburbs - a nice large sprawling vague category : ) - jc37 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unintentionally hilarious. –Pomte 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and create subcategories I think maybe we should have different categories for different suburbs. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete and explodify which isn't a real word but what I mean is I suggest splitting it up into many new categories. Well, if you think about it, this category could include over half a million wikipedians, if they all added this userbox. I mean, who is going to have time to read over half a million links? Therefore, it is rather meaningless, but if we at least divide it into many subcategories, it should correct this problem. So, I suggest deleting and/or splitting into subcategories, as this should be a better alternative. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians by location serves that function as specific as cities and certain subsections of cities (e.g. East London, England below). We don't need to know whether a Wikipedian lives downtown or in the suburbs. –Pomte 23:22, 19 April 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 Rename Category:Wikipedians who play video games to Category:Wikipedians by video game, and depopulate. - jc37 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians who play video games to Category:Wikipedians by video game and depopulate as "all-inclusive". - jc37 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 12:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "play" merger. --WaltCip 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and depopulate per nom. –Pomte 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and depopulate per nom. VegaDark 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. bibliomaniac15 22:59, 19 April 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.