< November 2007	January 2008 >

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename, uncontroversial. VegaDark (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in counter terrorism to Category:Wikipedians interested in counter-terrorism (to match Counter-terrorism and Category:Counter-terrorism)

Speedy rename: "counterterrorism" (or "counter-terrorism") is one word. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedians who like the Mirror universe to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the category is too narrow, being limited essentially to just one article. Thus, a user category is not needed since the article's talk page is the most logical hub for collaboration. Also, despite being created over 10 months ago, the category still contains only one user. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong merge - I nominated this several months ago for the same reasons, and stunningly it was kept. I think the reasoning was that people could collaborate on the articles on individual episodes that featured the mirror universe. Using that logic, however, you could keep "Wikipedians who like tricorders" or "Wikipedians who like Vulcans" categories as well, or pretty much anything in any tv show. VegaDark (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may find the previous discussion at /Archive/April 2007. –Pomte 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - The last discussion resulted in "No consensus", not directly "keep" :p - (2:2 for those vote counters out there...) - jc37 11:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - single user/single article category. UpMerge if no consensus to delete. - jc37 11:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - far too narrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 18:17, January 2, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jesuit alumni to ~~Category:Jesuit alumni wikipedians~~ Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Jesuit schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category must clearly indicate its purpose. The old name may be confused with article namespace. (It occurs now to me that in fact it squats a valid article space category.) Laudak (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom, but should this be here, or the other place? Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Jesuit schools by convention. All its fellow subcats should be renamed as well. I've notified UCFD. –Pomte 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved this from CFD to here. The suggestion above is more in line with what would have been suggested here earlier, and I endorse that suggestion. --Bduke (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have renominated it with the new rename suggestion while changing the tag on the category page. Pomte, what subcats were you referring to? --Bduke (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tagged these similar subcats of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Catholic schools for discussion here.

They look like categories for mainspace articles, and have been taken as such in Lloyd Monserratt and Marco Travaglio. After trying to understand the associated Catholic school articles, some of these definitely include high schools, though I don't know if they include colleges to be appropriate here. –Pomte 05:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all. These categories do not reflect affiliation with any post-secondary institution (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats). Indeed, they do not reflect affiliation with any particular institution. If no consensus to delete, rename per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC) relist to check support for BF's suggestion before this is closed rename --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all - These don't specify if they are colleges or not, and by looking through I think the categories are for primary education, which we have deemed as too specific for collaboration. Rename all per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - These just specify what Roman Catholic religious order "runs" the schools. See also Jesuits#Jesuit_Educational_institutions and List of Jesuit institutions for just one example. - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was muti-merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already have Category:Arab Wikipedians and Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Categorizing this specifically would allow for any number of nationality/ethnicity combination categories, which would be potentially thousands. This seems like overcategorization. VegaDark (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge the 2 members in to relevant categories, then delete, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. If I wanted to find someone to collaborate with on Canadian articles, I would go to WikiProject Canada. To collaborate on Arab articles, WikiProject Arab world. But it's exponentially harder to find someone interested in articles about Arab Canadians. Maybe this sort of thing should be clearly listified somewhere, say at the associated WikiProjects. –Pomte 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question then becomes if there are any articles that Arab Canadians are likely to specifically collaborate on (or any other ethnicity-nationalty combination), and more specifically, if such articles do exist, if enough of such articles merit a category rather than just using the talk page of an article. If so, I could support keeping the category. VegaDark (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arab Canadians, with 13 blue links to people and 2 blue links to organizatiions.

Possibly Iraqi Canadian, with 10 blue links to people.

Possibly Syrian Canadian.

Creation of notable red links.

The number of pages in associated categories don't agree with the number of links in these articles, so work needs to be done to organize them.

From a brief glance, there's no talk activity.

Only 2 people in the category after more than a year; if delete, tell them about each other in case they want to collaborate. –Pomte 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Actually, let me reframe my position on this type of category. We allow categorization by basic demographic information, which the Arab Wikipedians and Canadian Wikipedians categories adequately cover. Past that, we allow categorization by what would foster encyclopedic collaboration. The members of this category, as currently named, are not necessarily going to be interested on collaborating on Arab Canadian related articles just because they are one. If they are, they should create a category titled Category:Wikipedians interested in Arab Canadian topics or something similar. VegaDark (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC) - I can't tell if the 2 people who have commented are currenly advocating keep or merge (or delete). Please clarify (additional opinions from others are also welcome) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge and redirect If it's just me and one other user... i say merge into other, more appropriate-fitting, categories (such as Arab wikipedians, and Canadian wikipedians) and let him/her know of it too. frankly, it matters very little to me, as i'm a mixed-breed of several cultures and nationalities, but identify as irish-french most of the time. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multi-merge to Category:Canadian Wikipedians and Category:Arab Wikipedians per VegaDark. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for users interested in the natural sciences (presumably referring to the "fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences" rather than the "rational approach to the study of the universe"). While one might assume that this is a useful "interest" category just like any other, the fact is that there are a number of highly distinct disciplines that can be classified as "natural sciences" (e.g. astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics), and individual categories already exist for them. Thus, the category's scope is much too broad. While this could serve as a parent category for the discipline-specific categories, Category:Wikipedians interested in science is not yet populated to the extent that subcategorisation is needed or warranted. (At this time, subcategorisation of this type would likely hinder navigation more than it would help.)

Delete as nominator. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the natural sciences. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per nom - inclusion criteria is too broad. No prejudice against recreation as a parent cat in the future if needed. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, or depopulate to use for a parent category. Even if it is used as such, it may need to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians by natural science interest to show it should not have individual users in it. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category, which groups users who believe that technological singularity is possible and desirable, does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Merely holding a particular belief implies neither an above-average desire to contribute to articles about the subject (to assume so would likely be presumptuous or stereotyping) nor above-average access to or awareness of resources that could aid encyclopedic writing. In addition, despite being created 1-1/2 years ago, the category contains only a single userpage, associated with an account that has been inactive for 18 months and whose only edit to the mainspace was to an article about Star Trek.

Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - single article (and single user for more than a "short period of time") category. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Thought undoubtedly created in good faith (to supplement ((User published author))), this category seems to function essentially as a vanity category. I'm not suggesting that it was created for this purpose or that the users in the category are vain, but just that the category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. While the information may be interesting, the userbox is adequate to convey it, and a grouping of users serves no real purpose. This category implies no subject-specific interest, knowledge, or access to sources, and does not achieve anything that is not already achieved by other "interest" or "profession" user categories. (See also: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians by Erdős number and all subcategories)

Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~. This is much more relevant as a vanity category than say Category:Wikipedians with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Having an Erdos number is a non-defining consequence of having published, and so is fundamentally different from this one. Rather than fostering collaboration directly, the category is useful for suggesting the quality of Wikipedia's userbase, being one artifact for general tendencies to contrast Wikipedians with professionals, and what the chance is of templates like ((expert)) being successful. Anyone stumbling onto a userpage inside the category may wonder what other Wikipedians have published academically, and the category gives an indication of that, even if it is by no means complete. For anyone suggesting listifcation, it can be listifed directly within the category to spell out subject areas and other details. –Pomte 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's problematic to make any inferences about the "quality of Wikipedia's userbase" using this category. Some editors with publications may deliberately choose not to appear in the category. In addition, we cannot confirm the truth of self-categorisation; while we should assume good faith overall, a temptation for exaggeration does accompany anonymity. In essence, we cannot assume that the category is either representative of the general population of Wikipedia editors nor that it is accurate; this is not a problem so long as user categories are used as navigational devices, but it does become an issue when we try to make generalisations. Could you clarify what you mean by "listified directly within the category"? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is problematic to make any inference of the sort (I've been working on the problem of induction :), but it's done regardless. A disclaimer can be put in the category to say that it is not complete, or that the users may not have proved that they have published, though I think this is obvious. By "listified directly within the category", I mean the category itself can contain the potential list, rather than in project space. Also, I strongly disagree with Marlith and Bedford's reasons below. From this observation, it probably is a good idea to get rid of it to dispel such optimism. My thought was not for people to think that "wow, Wikipedians are awesome based on this sample", but simply that "there are possibly Wikipedians who have created reliable academic sources." By "quality", I didn't mean positive overall quality. –Pomte 09:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I believe this gives a sense of authority to editors, which helps with our public relations. Marlith 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Credentials (a proposal rejected by the community) and Essjay controversy. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I have a conflict of interest because I could be in this category. However, I see no particular reason why I should be. People can find out the areas in which I publish from my user page and that is more valuable than a general category. It also points to the probability that, while this category is quite well populated, it is missing a lot of wikipedians who could be in it. It tells us little of the "quality of Wikipedia's userbase". I would also add that I do not think I want to have "a sense of authority", as that might give me a big head and lead me to do silly things. To conclude, I think it is far too general to be of any use, so keep the userbox for those who want to display it, but delete the category. --Bduke (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. as per Marlith. Like Bduke, I may have a conflict of interest, but WP often has a credibility problem; this would help against that.--Bedford (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Inclusion criteria too broad. I think it's great that these Wikipedians have published "something". But considering that such publication could be under any discipline or field, I am having an incredibly hard time imagining the collaboration value. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I don't see the Wikipedia utility of seeking out users in this category. As per above, it is too broad, and the use of finding someone who simply has "something" published in an academic journal is suspect. The best use I could come up with is someone searching the category to get advice on how to get published, or writing tips for such publications. Neither of these uses help Wikipedia, however. Additionally, people will still be able to use "what links here" to see who is using the userbox if they are really determined to find users for such advice. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I dont list myself here, and dont intend to. But i find it interesting and useful in seeing who does, for it tell me something about their approach to editing and to Wikipedia, which is helpful in discussing articles and policy.. DGG (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in mobile to Category:Wikipedians interested in mobile telephony

Nominator's rationale: "Wikipedians interested in mobile" is just too ambiguous. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to something. Not entirely sure "mobile telephony" is the best choice, but it is better than the current name. Would certainly be open to other suggestions though. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The category says that it scope is limited to an interest in mobile devices that can access the internet, which may be too narrow. Note that Category:Mobile is parent for both telephony and computing. Perhaps Portable communications device? Mobile device does not cover enough of what is intended, if its article is accurate. –Pomte 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the solution is to expand the category's scope to include all wireless technology (Category:Wikipedians interested in wireless technology) or wireless communication (Category:Wikipedians interested in wireless communication)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per Pomte's comments above.("Note that Category:Mobile is parent for both telephony and computing.") I think (based on several comments so far) that the inclusion criteria is vague at best, which means we would have no way to know what each Wikipedian intended when including themselves in this category. (Though it's currently a single user category. Another reason to delete...) No prejudice against recreation of something with a clearer name to match its inclusion criteria. - jc37 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of Mitch Hedberg, a comedian. Except in rare cases, we should not have "fans of" categories for individuals, since their scope is generally too narrow for encyclopedic collaboration, and also because the article talk page is the single-most logical place for collaboration for biographical articles. If kept, it would set a precedent for separate "fans of" categories for each of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia. Also note that, despite being created over a year ago, the category still includes only one user. (Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete- ridiclous.--Dr Nat (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of Devon Werkheiser, an American actor. Except in rare cases, we should not have "fans of" categories for individuals, since their scope is generally too narrow for encyclopedic collaboration, and also because the article talk page is the single-most logical place for collaboration for biographical articles. If kept, it would set a precedent for separate "fans of" categories for each of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia (I imagine that Playboy centerfolds would be especially well-represented). (Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Single or few-article categories in general are rarely necessary due to existence of talk pages. VegaDark (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, and because it's actually vague (as we noted waaay back when it was renamed to this name). Is the category member a fan of the actor's work? Or a fan of the actor? (And though it's stretching it in this case, I can think of other actors which could have examples which could involve being a fan of the actor's belief(s); or preferred reading; or the actor's eponymous magazine or other periodical or series, including radio or television; or clothing/perfume/makeup/etc line of merchandice; or dance "moves"; etc etc etc) It just doesn't seem like a good idea. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Eguor editors to Category:Eguor Wikipedians - per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Naming conventions (Wikipedian sub-categories). - jc37 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as not useful to Wikipedia. Rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as is - A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds -- Ralph Waldo Emerson ... but if you insist, rename it, don't delete, seems useful to me (I'd be in it if I weren't in the corresponding admin category). ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as is, use of term admin and placement in category structure is enough to cover guidance on naming conventions. Also, when did it become common practise for nominator to iterate their position twice? I wouldn't want to see debates become weighted as people constantly reiterate their position. Hiding T 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't Category:Eguor admins. You may have confused the two categories. Also, in CfD, these are "discussions", not keep/delete debates. As a result, it's not always clear what the intent of the nominator is. - jc37 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken re the category. Still think it's clear enough, but I won't let the door hit me on the arse on the way out. Any nominator who can't make their intentions clear in their nomination would worry me, to be honest. Like I say, I wouldn't want anything to get confused because a position has been iterated twice, which certainly seems to have happened here. I mean, you have said Rename twice, haven't you? I'm just wondering how you didn't think that was clear first time around. I don't get what the fact that this is UCFD has to do with anything. Either you were clear in your first iteration and don't need to clarify, or you weren't clear in your first iteration and, this being a wiki, you shoulod just edit that first iteration for clarity. Hiding T 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, no closer should ever count bolded text in determining consensus. So it shouldn't matter if I said Rename 50 times. That said, it can be considered confusing if such is done throughout a discussion, and so further comments are typically done as Comment, rather than reiterating rename. As for why I did it above, and typically do so in all CfD/UCfD nominations, I've already explained above. - jc37 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you didn't actually explain why you did it. You said it's not always clear what the intent is. I'm not sure how it is not clear what you're intent was. Are you suggesting people don't read the nomination? Hiding T 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, maybe there's value in keeping this to editors. I don't know what the scope of the cat is, but I assume it is to mirror Eguor admins but be for those who aren't admins. If you rename this then it gets muddy over what Eguor admins is for and maybe it is best to keep the two distinct and let individuals sort themselves as they wish rather than attempt to push a de facto category. Don't agree with the deletion opinion,s this seems to follow in the tradition of the long established philosophy cats which the wider community find of use. For the record, 4 users are categorised here, category created 24 June 2007, and it isn't userbox fed. Hiding T 17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're all Wikipedians here. And admiship should be "no big deal". Whether admins should have a sub-grouping within the broader grouping of Wikipedians, can be discussed/nominated, I suppose, or not, at "editorial" discretion : ) - jc37 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's germane to the discussion, so I don't see any value in closing that avenue down. If tradition is that we categorise like this, then let's follow that tradition. Hiding T 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I agree with the sentiment, but don't think a category is needed for it. Per Vegadark, I'll be ok with a rename if there is no consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and, moreover, that treats Wikipedias as a battleground: e.g. "loyal opposition", "Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note - I left a neutral message pointing Anyeverybody, the creator of this category, and Durova, the creator of the "Eguor admins" category, to this discussion. --Iamunknown 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Defer to the community. Not quite a neutral comment here: I've received notification and want to acknowledge it. Thank you for informing me. Stepping back with a respectful nod to all editors here. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Defer also. Anynobody 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overcategorization. We don't need a nationalty tied in with a hobby in the same category, or else we would open the door for hundreds of thousands of category combinations. Category:Wikipedian blogers (which I am amazed doesn't exist) and Category:Canadian Wikipedians is more than sufficient. Alternatively, just rename the category to Category:Wikipedian bloggers VegaDark (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - bloggers was deleted. So many people blog and on such a variety of subjects that it's not of much interest to know which Wikipedians blog. Categories about people who blog on specific subjects from specific places don't give them any credibility, so they fit inside the general "Wikipedians interested in..." cats, unless they are professional writers in which case they should be in cats for professionals. –Pomte 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kbdank71 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above, or upmerge to Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by location would seem to apply here as well, in this case. - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Consensus doesn't have to be reached, and I see little in this debate which suggests that a relisting will solve the issues raised. I suggest further debate takes place between the participants at a more localised venue, perhaps the category talk page, and return the issue to UCFD when more common ground is found. Hiding T 13:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: While I understand the value of a maintenance category for images of Wikipedians (see Category:Wikipedian images), I don't see how a category for users who "have a photo of themselves on their user page" can be used for anything other than social networking. The category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and is redundant to Wikipedia:Facebook, which is actually a more complete and useful (in that it actually displays the images) directory. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Was considering nominating this myself. VegaDark (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think social networking is a realistic concern here, but I do agree that it's a bit redundant. On the other hand, it allows someone to sort through listings based on username (instead of file name), and then see the image after clicking the link. Redundant to the facebook page? yes, but that might not be a bad thing. I can't say I have a strong opinion on this matter one way or another at this time, but my feelings are based on an organizational rationale, rather than a "social networking" concern. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want to clarify that I consider potential social networking to be only one issue; there is also the more general issue of lack of collaborative value/potential. Also, Wikipedia:Facebook seems to order listing by username as well ... could you please clarify to what you were referring? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not everyone has high speed internet connections. I think this category has just as much potential as the facebook page, so I don't understand that concern either. The only concern I understand is the redundancy one, and I'm not sure if that's a strong enough reason to delete. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom; listified at Wikipedia:Facebook. –Pomte 06:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - There was some discussion in the last MfD about the facebook page that perhaps this category (or another) might be a better way to do this. I currently don't think we should pick between the two. Also, even if this category is deleted, the Wikipedian pictures cat should not be, as it's merely a gallery of such pictures. - jc37 09:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no intention of nominating the Wikipedian images category, nor do I see any reason to delete that since it's useful for image maintenance. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listify, perhaps as a subpage or on the talk page of the image category. —Scouter Sig 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - as per jc37. --Bedford (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ned Scott: If someone doesn't have a high speed internet connection, why would they use this category, and how? Going through to click the various user pages will require more bandwidth. I'm not trying to sway your opinion with this question, it just seems odd. –Pomte 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a practical note, it's infeasible to make this category complete and consistent with the list. Users may not want to be categorized (we'd have to ask their permission anyway), or users may categorize without knowing to add themselves to the list. It's not totally useful then. –Pomte 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians with public domain text contributions (minor edits only). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Public domain minor edit license

I propose renaming this category to Category:Wikipedians with public domain text contributions (minor edits). The current name is a bit confusing, while the proposed name specifies to the highest degree possible the nature of users in the category. I've already created a new Category:Wikipedians with public domain text contributions using this naming scheme. --- RockMFR 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment is this (or either) category necessary? Couldn't you see "What links here" for the template? —Scouter Sig 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest "...(minor edits only)" since by default, everyone in the broader category belongs in the minor edits category. I'm not familiar with the process here, but the proposed title may seem confusing as well. It doesn't imply why the edits are in the public domain. I would suggest Category:Wikipedians who multi-license their text contributions marked as minor edits into the public domain, but to use the verb multi-license it may be necessary to add "under the GFDL" as well, which makes it super long. So I have no problem with the proposal, as it's obviously clearer than the current title. –Pomte 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with "minor edits only" in the title to make it more clear. VegaDark (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was re-org as proposed by Lar. Lar, I'm going to entrust this to your hands, but if you need any bot assistance (or other assistance for that matter) to complete the task, please let me know on my talk page or AMbot's talk or request page. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete criteria and wikispace stuff inappropriately in category space. Empty too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Users' criteria are relevant to a category concerning users. ~~Somewhat weird to claim it is empty too. It is not~~. --John (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question for the nominator: what alternative do you propose for this information if this page is deleted? A list (such as "Wikipedia:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Admin criteria")?--A. B. ^(talk) 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep the information readily available and centralized. I'm open to as to how that's done: using the current subpage off the category page, a list page in Wikipedia space, or a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall with links to individual accountability pages. The last is my least preferred since it now means everyone creating a bunch of user subpages. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is obviously necessary and should be kept in some form. A list might work better than a category as indicated by the actual use of a list in the category itself, as well as the fact that it currently contains zero pages. But I think it would aid navigation if every recall page is in it, so readers can notice it at the bottom and find other admins' criteria. There can be a list in addition to the category, though it's probably easier for everyone to have the category only. The category can also contain historic pages like Wikipedia:Fully Uncompelled Binding Administrator Recall or personal essays like User:Ral315/Recall. –Pomte 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, move to talk page - I don't think we need a subpage for this, why not just use the category's talk page? VegaDark (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The talk page, as evidenced by its long history, is for discussion on the concept itself, or maybe even discussion about particular recall criteria, which is enough scope without the list (the "main" content of contention after all). The list can theoretically be put on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall itself, but probably not in conjunction with my idea above of categorizing criteria pages. –Pomte 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, moving it to the Wikipedia space is also fine with me. As per below this page may need a talk page for itself, so I would support that as well. VegaDark (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect the nom isn't really up on what this page is supposed to be for. (I would have been happy to explain if asked) Recall if you will that one of the major criticisms leveled (at the last few recalls we have had) has been that the process that was to be followed wasn't clear to the participants, or worse, that there was at least a perception that recallees were changing the process as they went to ensure a more favourable outcome. I've been sounding out category members about tightening up their criteria and process, well in advance of any possible recall, to address this, as I did myself at User:Lar/Accountability.. so far I've only pinged a very few, which is why the list is short so far, but 2 out of 3 people I've mentioned this to have already listed something. I plan to eventually ping everyone in the category though, and encourage them to list their criteria there. I think it is highly useful to collect these so everyone can improve and refine theirs in advance of their need, and further, so that they are easy to find. A page to collect these needs to exist somewhere. It needs to NOT be on the talk page of the category itself, too ephemeral, just as Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests and Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Change records are not, since the material is primarily reference. Unlike the category itself, I'm not particularly sussed whether these pages are in category space or not, but it seems natural to me that they are subpages of the category itself, or of its talk page. So... keep but move it/them wherever you like. If you move the page (or other pages), make sure that all links are fixed and that the place you move the page to is logical, that is that someone searching for the page is likely to find it on the first try. (some of the gyrations around pages relating to this category have been rather sloppily executed in my view) I did not actually think of putting everyone's pages/sections/whatevers into a category per se, because in THIS case, a list (with links that possibly go to sections within a page) is the natural organization scheme. To me this page just a page, not a category, because it's a subpage of a category, not in the category space itself. But as I say, I'm not sussed about exactly where it goes. Move it as you like (and leave a redirect) Anyone who argues that it needs to not exist at all... seriously misses the mark though. No bonus points to the nom for just up and nominating a relatively new page instead of asking the originator about what was meant though... That was not really a good approach in my view. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in some form. Like the above, I'm not so much concerned about the format, just so the information is retained.--Kubigula (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. If you want this information somewhere else, move it there. This is not what categories are for, and it is not the nominator's job to find a better place for it. If the creator looks at this as "just a page, and not a category", then he perhaps should not have created it in the category namespace. Delete as empty. --Kbdank71 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It's apparently not empty any more. Do you have a suggestion for a place or did you just want to say delete without being constructive? As I explained, it may (likely will) have talk of its own so it's not suitable as a talk page. I could see moving it to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria to be || to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests (and also moving Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Change records to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Change records to increase the parallelism) ... but to do that we'd now have to empty this category. Frankly the things in it confuse me a bit as they are not all specific administrators criteria, some are essays and all sorts of other things. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the essays and failed proposals and other things that are not exactly an admin's specific criteria/process, now in the category, seems to me all of those belong on a "see also" page/section perhaps a section on the main category page... or else a subpage Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/see also... ?? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you need something like a less wordy version of Category:Pages related to Wikipedia administrators open to recall, or just categorise those pages in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and use the sort order to put the meta stuff seperate from users (e.g. by sorting them all under "*"). The criteria subpage as was seems superflous to me; that information could be copyedited and condensed and placed in the category text of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. --kingboyk (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the idea is that by giving links to everyone's (that chooses to make them public) they are easy to find. and to refer to. Condensing down can't be done, everyones presumably would be different. Or at least some people's would. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Just find a new name then. And you still need to categorise the other pages imho (either in the main cat, e.g. under "*") or in something like Category:Pages related to Wikipedia administrators open to recall. --kingboyk (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and possibly look into shutting down User categories for discussion. Friday (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- really? ... And do what? Fold it back into the regular CFD? ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Possibly, or maybe MFD if CFD is primarily focused on article space. I'm growing more concerned that this has become an insular group, not taking into account standard practices of the rest of the project. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions and it's not necessary, but I've seen some recent puzzling behavior here. Friday (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Well yes, I share that latter feeling/concern as well... see the talk page, particularly this thread ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm puzzled by this. It seems to be a category containing various pages related to the recall process (it's not just a subpage as Lar stated), although they're certainly not all "criteria". The "Criteria list" seems to be redundant as all but 1 of the 8 cells point to User:Lar/Accountability. The whole thing is a rather confusing mess, and the category name doesn't help. That said, it's obviously considered useful so I would advocate keeping and asking the participants to come up with a neater scheme (a better name and more helpful category text, ideally). --kingboyk (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The other pages in the category are Pomte's recent doing. I see where Pomte was going with that idea, but think maybe a see also page (rather than categorization) is better for those. As for why so many of the entries in the table link to my process, I have only pinged a few CAT:AOTR members about being more formal (see User:Lar/catmsg for what I am pinging people with) and mostly so far they seem to like mine. That wasn't my plan! My plan was we'd see 20-30 different ones that people could learn from and use to refine their own instead of everyone telling me that mine was awesome. :) ... not that I mind but it wasn't my plan! ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Thanks Lar. I don't mind all the relevant project pages being included in a category (that's what they're for) but good luck finding a name! :) Likewise I can see what you were thinking with the criteria category; if it contained only recall criteria I can't see why it would be unacceptable (and it would probably be somewhat useful). Again, however, the current name is rather poor as it suggests a sub-page rather than an actual category, and the current organisation is certainly lacking. I'm sure you'll come up with something good though... --kingboyk (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- My rationale was that it might be of interest to see how the idea has progressed over the years, and they are technically admin criteria, albeit proposed by other editors. Rather than a see also section to a number of other pages on every page, the category is simpler. Then if someone ends up on one of those pages, they won't necessarily be dead ends and the category lets them navigate to related proposals. But, I have no problems if you guys come up with another scheme. –Pomte 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - but possibly move to somewhere more appropriate, possibly Wikipedia namespace - Alison ^❤ 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - useful category, rename if the name is a problem Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm coming round to making things || as I alluded to above... putting the contents of this page into Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria to be || to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests (and also moving Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Change records to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Change records) so that all three informational pages are in WP space (despite my reservations about use of WP space for this... if they get MfDed I'll refer to this discussion :) ) and then putting the "see also stuff" into a new category that is a subcategory of the main one Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall, probably called Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Other recall systems or similar. If I did all that, could we close this UCFD? I actually think some of the talk on this UCFD is worth preserving as it does have some organizational thinking from others as well as me, but if most everyone is comfortable with this approach, is that enough? I'll ping Carlossuarez46 I guess as s/he hasn't come back since the initial nom.... ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thanks Lar for pinging me, it seems to have been repurposed and I have no problem with it as it currently is being used. I would withdraw and close, but at least one other editor has expressed a "delete" position, that probably isn't appropriate. I am sure that the closing admin will do the right thing now any way. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The thing is, now I'm itching to get it all reorganized as outlined. I guess I can create the other pages, move the table off this one, (although probably do that by rename rather than copy paste to leave the history intact, a number of editors have now edited in their stuff) and leave the category itself dangling... at that point it's a delete.. I would just want to rescue the other (non individual criteria) for whatever new cat was decided on...) ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I really cannot see the harm in this. 1 != 2 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I see no harm in listing various admins' criteria together. It helped me refine my own recall criteria, and I suspect that it would be helpful to a user requesting an admin's recall. Keilana_(recall) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I support Lar's (and others') intention to ReOrg this set of pages (including the one under nomination). I don't think that continuing this individual UCFD discussion should stand in the way of this, so I'd like to request that this be (speedily - though 5 days have already elapsed) closed as Move/Merge to Wikipedia-space page(s), then Delete, with no prejudice for renomination later if there are further concerns after the ReOrg (or if it doesn't happen in a fairly timely fashion). - jc37 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm going to get started on implementing this as soon as practical, then, using the pages I outlined above. I would really like to preserve the edit history though. Would you lot be OK with leaving the cat as a soft redirect instead of outright delete, so that the first edit's summary could point to the cat for older history? This is to get around the inability to just move a category page to a non cat page, I just tried that again just to be sure it didn't work. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Soft redirects are fine AFAIK, as long as they aren't overused. In this case, it looks like you either need the soft redirect, or else ask each to personally re-add their criteria to whatever the new page is. (Though I personally do prefer the latter if possible.) Happy editing : ) - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This category is for Wikipedians who use Blender (software). IMO this is too narrow for collaboration, as members would only be able to collaborate on one page, which the talk page can be used for. My second preference would be a rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Blender (software) if there is no consensus for deletion, since it would make the category's use more clear. VegaDark (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as nom, rename if no consensus to delete. Not useful for collaboration. --kingboyk (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I removed the "d" from use(d), as it was presumably a typo? - jc37 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it was. VegaDark (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians who like Babylon 5. VegaDark (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upmerge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge, mistake. Picaroon (t) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like a mistake? Not sure, possibly speedyable if so. In either case, should be merged to Category:Wikipedians in Brazil. VegaDark (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy merge. ! is a letter in some languages, but I doubt it has some special meaning here that warrants a distinct category. –Pomte 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. It could have been created to be listed at the top because of the special character. No use. -- Menti fisto 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: University of Mississippi. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Being that the University of Mississippi is widely known as Ole Miss, and "Ole Miss" is almost exclusively used for every sports telecast as the name of the school, it should be left as is. See Ole Miss Rebels and Ole Miss Rebels football. It's one of the few schools that has an official second name, which is why I created the category like that. -- ALLSTARecho 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gathered the impression that "Ole Miss" is used mostly in the context of sports; for instance, we have Category:Ole Miss basketball but Category:University of Mississippi alumni. Also, I would ask you to consider a situation where someone wants to locate the category via the search box. Which title are they more likely to type: the shorter title that matches both the main article and the main article category or the longer title that uses "University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ole Miss isn't used mostly in the context of sports, I was just using that as an example as far as consistant national coverage is concerned. Considering that this category is for students and former students, those are the very exact people that would search for "Ole Miss" before they would "University of Mississippi" simply because they know and used as a student "Ole Miss". It's just the culture of the university. In Mississipppi, whether we're talking about the football team or the medical center the university operates, we say "Ole Miss". Current amd former students, when asked where they go/went to college, don't say "Oh, I go/went to the University of Mississippi". They say "I go/went to Ole Miss". As I said previously, it's one of the few schools that has an official second name, a name that is used more than it's main official name. As it is now, whether they do a search for Ole Miss or University of Mississippi, they will get the same result. If they come searching for "Ole Miss", and most assuredly will before "University of Mississippi", they won't get this cat because it doesn't say Ole Miss on it. Even in the 1960s, newspapers across the country reported about the race riots at "Ole Miss" in their headlines and then in the stories themselves, they gave a mention "University of Mississippi". They used "Ole Miss" in the headlines because that's what most people know the university as. -- ALLSTARecho 00:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, I bet if you go back and look at all of the "University of Mississipp" articles on WP, they were initially created as "Ole Miss" or "Ole Miss" was found in the article title but was later renamed. That's just side proof that people know it as Ole Miss more than University of Mississippi. -- ALLSTARecho 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really think that people would type "Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi" into the search box, ((Category redirect)) can be used to direct them. –Pomte 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems more appropriate. Rather than renaming this cat, just redirect the proposed new cat name to the current one. -- ALLSTARecho 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current title includes both names, which is probably the least likely of all three options. Even if people are more likely to search for "Ole Miss", they surely wouldn't search for "University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)". So, while a category redirect may be a good idea in this case, the category should not remain at its present title. It should be at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ole Miss. One thing to keep in mind: although this category contains students and alumni of the university, it is not intended solely for their use. Someone who is not a student or alumnus may not know the second "official title" and so would likely search for the title used by the article. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your resume, would you ever list your alma mater as "Ole Miss"? Didn't think so. I'm a huge sports fan so I am familiar with the name, but I didn't even know it applied outside of athletics. For Wikipedia I think we should rename per nom. Additionally, the article is not titled University of Mississippi (Ole Miss), so if for no other reason, the category should match the article name. If the article name is ever changed, then the category can be changed to match it, but until then we should go with the name currently used on Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Taking the Wikipediholism test does not make one a Wikipediholic. The category does not foster collaboration on any mainspace articles. ((User wikipedia/Wikipediholic)) could be edited to categorize only those who received higher than a certain score, but the test scores become arbitrary depending on the questions at any given time. –Pomte 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No encyclopedic purpose to seek out users in this category. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as arbitrary 'Wikipedians by template use' categorisation, per Pomte. Also, per VegaDark, the maintenance of this grouping of users cannot be used to foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Vegadark and BF. --Kbdank71 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian quality assurance specialists. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Wikipedians who work in the fields of quality assurance and quality control (see User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes/User Quality). At minimum, this should be renamed, perhaps to Category:Wikipedian quality assurance specialists (according to Quality assurance, "Quality assurance includes quality control"). However, given that the two professions are substantially different, it may be best to simply delete this category and allow Category:Wikipedian quality assurance specialists and Category:Wikipedian quality control specialists or Category:Wikipedian quality engineers to be created and populated naturally. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete (1st choice) or rename (2nd choice) as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear; this category is for people who work in QA as a living, not people involved in the QA of Wikipedia, correct? If it's the later, rename to something less vague, otherwise delete. - Koweja (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's correct. The userbox is intended specifically for users who work in the QA and quality control professions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename - As creator of this category, I realize now that this was not clear enough when I did this earlier. My suggestion on this is to rename it to what User:Black Falcon proposes. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename but do not delete. Has the potential to foster encyclopedic collaboration, we have a lot of articles about subjects that people working in this field may be able to help with. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who listen to big band to Category:Wikipedians who listen to big band music

Nominator's rationale: As "big band" is a type of musical ensemble rather than an actual musical genre, "Wikipedians who listen to big band" is grammatically incorrect. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (user notified). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for users who "love the Earth" and recycle. User categorisation on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, and the sentiment could be expressed via a userpage notice or a userbox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Inclusion criteria is way too broad. - jc37 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the above reasons and do not merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in environmentalism as the scope differs. –Pomte 22:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and Rename Worthwhile, but the word is spelled wrong; it's environmentalists.--Bedford (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and notify the single user in the category that Category:Wikipedians interested in environmentalism exists. They can decide if it's a fit or not. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Delete - Can't think of any encyclopedic benefit this category would have over Category:Wikipedians interested in environmentalism. VegaDark (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a category for editors who listen to a musical "direction" that does not have a head article. Tanz-Metall redirects to Neue Deutsche Härte; however, that article and the category description suggest that Tanz-Metall is affiliated solely or primarily with the band Rammstein.

Delete as too narrow in scope (no head article) and per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. Other options include: upmerge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal music (2nd choice) and rename to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Neue Deutsche Härte (3rd choice, because the scope is still too narrow). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No article means no category, simple as that. VegaDark (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete scope too narrow. –Pomte 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete scope too narrow. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category creates a grouping of users on a miscellaneous sentiment that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. In addition, it is a "not" category that lacks a logical opposite: Category:Wikipedians who tolerate harassment makes no sense. Also, we have WP:HARASS, so... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned. We really have no need for Wikipedians Who Follow A Specific Policy categories. This one also comes off as unnecessarily threatening/aggressive/defensive. - Koweja (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Additionally, "Wikipedians who does" is improper grammar and should be renamed at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I don't think we need categories for those who follow a specific guideline or policy. Besides, if I were to WP:AGF, this should be an all-inclusive category, depending on how one defines "tolerate" (a word that shouldn't ever be in a Wikipedian category name). - jc37 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No one tolerates harrassment. People just disagree on what constitutes harrassment. –Pomte 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by SatyrTN (talk · contribs) per CSD G7 (author-requested deletion). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Online communities, forums, and blogs and other precedents against categories for "Wikipedians by social networking website". The article LinkedIn identifies this as a business-oriented social networking service. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Too narrow for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I'm the creator of it. I'll remove it according to the above linked discussions. --Dan Leveille^TALK 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. No prejudice against creation of an interest category. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Wikipedians by mental and physiological condition and subcats. Grouping editors on this basis does not foster encyclopedic collaboration; a simple userpage notice or the userbox that populates this category are enough to convey the information. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I have minor astigmatism, and I can't imagine what benefit there would be to put myself in this category. VegaDark (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have a certain eye disorder and it'd be really useful for me to talk about the experience with someone to check for accuracy in sources and articles. I have sort of done so, albeit on a talk page rather than through a user category. –Pomte 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Additionally, this category excludes people who may be interested in astigmatism but don't have it, discouraging them from collaborating. I could support a rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in astigmatism (eye) (but perhaps this is too narrow?), a better category idea would be Category:Wikipedians interested in refractive error (probably best option) or Category:Wikipedians interested in eye pathology (perhaps too broad?). VegaDark (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support the independent creation of an "interest" category, but renaming is likely to create miscategorisation. Having a medical condition doesn't automatically imply an interest in the condition; for instance, I'm somewhat near-sighted, but I haven't any interest in the subject of myopia. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too narrow for a category. Would only allow collaboration on a single article, which the article's talk page can be used for. If "Wikipedians who like" categories are kept for obscure movies like this, that would allow for many thousands of categories, one for every movie that has ever been released. VegaDark (talk)

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, for excessively narrow scope. When any collaborative potential is limited to one article only, the most logical place for collaboration is the article's talk page, making a category unnecessary. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - single article category. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. As noted, this is not a speedy, but it is still a delete (sorry for the process wonky, but we've been down this road before. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use BOINC. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete recreation. –Pomte 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How is it a recreation? I just checked and didn't see any delete record entries, which you typically would see in recreation cases. It appears to be a similar category that was deleted previously and in that category it noted that this one could not be deleted yet as it wasn't nominated. That seems excessively process wonky but... ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - "Recreation" as in "pertains to recreational activities"? :) Seriously, I think Pomte refers to "Wikipedians who use BOINC" already being nominated and deleted (see link in Black Falcon's nomination). Миша13 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Follow the link... it clearly says this category can't be deleted as it wasn't nominated. Therefore this category is not a re-creation. re-created categories have delete entries, typically. This category, created 5 September, well before that deletion nomination, has none. Therefore, not a re-creation. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Just playing devil's advocate, but G4 states "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion..." It doesn't have to be the same name, but I think trying to apply G4 to a category is a bad idea, as the true content of it is what is included in the category, rather than the editable page itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Check the dates, this one was here first, way earlier in fact. So not a copy... So no... and stop bedeviling me. :) If your argument is that this was a backwater, almost empty category to which everyone was migrated after the other one was deleted, and hence a copy in spirit if not in fact, then you need to know who was added to which category when... for that use U ser:BryanBot to check for you, by setting up a page it can write results to and waiting 3 hours, it can go back a month. Anyway I don't think the original deletion was very sound, it reads like it was mostly the regulars here echoing each other (I'm sure that's not actually what happened, mind you, it just reads like it...), and it ought to be DRVed. This category is not harmful, not divisive, and does have the possibility of collaboration, two ways... articles about distributed computing, and wp:space projects that use distributed computing to accomplish things. The more I think about it, the less of a stretch it seems to me. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        (comment neutral to the nomination) - It wasn't a 'recreation", though I guess I can understand other interpretations of that term. This was merely a case of one category being nominated/tagged, and another, similar one, wasn't. Something that apparently the current nominator is attempting to remedy. - jc37 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many category members have been informed that this category is up for deletion? I count 65 reasons to keep, currently... It's a stretch but I can see how this category could, how does it go... foster encyclopedic collaboration: I think this technology, enabling distributed computation as it does, may well be useful at some point for tools development, there are low priority tasks that could run using it. weak keep ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(comment neutral to the nomination) - Per current XfD convention, page contributors/category members are not personally informed of a discussion. Tagging (the placement of the apparopriate XfD template) is considered enough. - jc37 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly wouldn't want to notify 65 people before I nominated something. That would definitely discourage nominations here if that requirement were made, unless a bot were set up to do it. Additionally, that would bring up a canvassing concern. Obviously members of a category are going to be more inclined to think a category should be kept, so notifying only them would introduce a huge bias to debates, rather than what the community as a whole thinks. VegaDark (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And not notifying them introduces a bias the other way. Remember, images, templates, userboxen, anything that gets transcluded, basically is going to show up in a way that lets you know it's at risk. But not categories. Categories are special in that there is nothing visible at the bottom of a page mixed in with the categories to tell you that some category is being considered. The first you know of it is if it shows up red or you see someone edited your page to remove it, and at that point, short of a DRV ("where were you when we were discussing it???" I can hear being asked already) there's nothing to be done. I think it might be time to consider discussing whether that policy of not notifying users is a good one for categories, especially user categories. Because, as you say... the users are biased... The users of a category might just have some small insight as to why the category is actually useful that the UCFD regulars wouldn't have... But naaaa... after all, what do 10 or 100 or 1000 users of a particular category know about usefulness of that category that 3 or 4 UCFD regulars don't? And we wouldn't want to do things that would "discourage" nominations here, would we? ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your obvious sarcasm aside, there's nothing stopping anyone from adding a category to their watchlist. It's no different than anything else up for XfD. If it's on your watchlist, you should note that an XfD template has been added. And actually, given that categories typically aren't edited much, they have a better chance of being seen/noted. In addition, if these categories are so useful for collaboration/contribution, then those using them as such should instantly be aware of the discussion. But this is all a "meta"-discussion, outside the scope of this particular nomination. - jc37 01:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have 3000+ watchlist entries. Having a cat on a watchlist doesn't quite have the same effect as a transcluded template on my homepage that suddenly has a tag on it saying it's up for deletion. Categories are different. But you're right, this is meta for this particular debate. ++Lar: t/c 05:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. It seems process wonky that this wasn't deleted along with the other one. Being part of a distributed computing project does not mean that one is able to edit articles about those projects. If I'm not mistaken, it's as trivial as running a program in the background. If we have consensus to notify all <65 members, I'll do it, and we can poll them about the usefulness of this category. –Pomte 02:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing. I apologize for the delay in closing this discussion. I wanted to ensure that the bot owner was absolutely OK with this change and that nothing would be harmed. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing per naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've notified SineBot's operator in case this affects the bot's functionality. –Pomte 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You beat me to it, and yes, I'm sure there will have to be some minor changes to to bot code in order for it to work properly. VegaDark (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, seeing as this required changes to its code in order to accommodate non-existent category errors from api.php in concert with an active category), I would suggest you wait until the 26th to actually do renaming, because I'm going to be out of reach until then (I'll be on a cruise for the next week). It should work now, and worst case people get mad at the bot signing even after they've opted out. So, if you don't wait until I get back, then I'm sending the angry mob in your direction. :P Also, whenever you rename it over, please be sure to edit User:SineBot to reflect the changes. By the way, was all this really necessary? --slakr^\ talk / 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the category necessary for the bot's function? Or could we just delete it with no consequences thereof? —Scouter Sig 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is necessary, being one of two ways for users to opt out. –Pomte 15:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) - relisting for clarification and to wait until the bot owner returnsReply[reply]

Keep as is. Since you have asked for other input, I say leave it as it is because the change really is not necessary. It would however cause quite unnecessary work for the owner of the bot. --Bduke (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No changes on UCFD are "necessary". I just think we should have a uniform naming convention for user categories. This is the only category to begin with "users". I don't think we should accept a mistake in the naming of a category just because it would take some work to reverse it. VegaDark (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom; as I understand it, the effort required to make the change will be fairly minimal (a minor tweak in the bot's code). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename for naming standardization. The work that the bot operator has to do to keep the bot running a)should be fairly trivial as they just have to change a category being checked, and b)is irrelevant since it is the operator's job to keep the bot working, not Wikipedia's job to work around bots. - Koweja (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete Do we really need to know that you don't want SineBot to do something you're supposed to do in the first place? -- ALLSTARecho 10:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not for editors to know who has opted out. It's for the bot to know. - Koweja (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per BDuke. Don't agree that we need standardisation on this scale. Hiding T 17:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that the extra work for the bot operator would be minimal, involving just a minor tweak to the bot's code. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that we don't need to standardise this, so we don't need to tweak anything. I can't see what is broken. The nominator asserts this needs to be renamed. I fail to understand the basis of this need. I believe the nominator and supporters would like this renamed. I would not. Hiding T 20:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, OK. I do not agree with you, but I can understand your argument. Thanks for clarifying, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Hiding T 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We only need to rename this if we want to standardize naming conventions on Wikipedia, which I think is helpful for navigation. Need is a figure of speach, I'm not saying this needs to be done or Wikipedia will no longer work. If you want to argue what needs to be done or not, technically nothing needs to be done on UCFD at all. Wikipedia will still exist if nobody ever deletes or changes a user category. The same could go for articles or any other namespace. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't even need to exist. The world will not end if Wikipedia went down. In essence, every change we make on Wikipedia is something we want or would like to be done, not a need, so I really don't understand your argument at all. That same reasoning could be made to argue against any proposed change on Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You think it is helpful. I'd like to disagree. Is that okay? We can hypothesise all we want about different things happening, but does that really help anyone? I agree it is nice to read your lyrical outpouring, although I would have liked you to have posited further and unravelled a universe or two, but at the end of the day we're still having a pissing contest into the wind. :) I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours and at some point a consensus will emerge. I'm not one who often disputes a call when it comes, so I'll bow out and await the closer to read the debate and work out which preference is liked most. Hiding T 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, Hiding's opposition stems from either a personal preference for the "Users..." convention or opposition in principle to what is essentially a housekeeping nomination. Absent a clear indication from Hiding himself, I've AGF'd that it is the former. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See you make me feel a heel now. I can't see anything wrong with users is all, and I've taken against standardisation for standardisations sake. But this is why I walked away from deletion debates. I just don't get some of it. What Difference Does It Make? I was happy enough letting it be, but then... then I guess I wasn't. I guess I wanted to make my voice heard again so people couldn't make the claim that I'd consented through my silence. So think ill of me if you will, but give me the respect I've grudgingly earnt for speaking my mind. I don't mean to annoy or offend anyone, I just want the right to disagree, and for people to realise that standards don't have to matter. Hiding T 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking for myself, I can say that I'm neither annoyed nor offended, and I certainly don't think ill of you. I don't really understand why you oppose standardisation and/or consistency, especially since it seems you have no real preference for one or the other format, but maybe that's just my personality... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's mine. If it ain't broke... I can't see any leaking water. I had a whole host of people moaning at me a while back about how my next 1000 edits could be to article space or they could be... and here I am anyway. What are we ultimately discussing here? ten, maybe eleven letters in a category used by a small percentage of blah blah blah. You're right, I should leave this all alone. The problem is, if I do, when you delete something I wanted you tell me it's because I doidn't stop you deleting all those other things. I'm kind of damned if I do and damned if I don't. Hiding T 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per naming conventions. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom - A fairly mundane change. Let's strive for consistency. The major opposition seems to be "Let's keep everything the way it is for no reason whatsoever just cause", which is silly on a wiki. TheBilly (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I should note that it's not an issue of "Let's keep everything the way it is for no reason whatsoever just cause," but category renaming is actually quite a pain in the butt to do, as it requires the assistance of bots and/or scripts, plus a slew of edits in order to do so. Moreover, in this specific case it would potentially affect functionality of a relatively broad scope bot, and could aggravate a bunch of users if done incorrectly. If it was a simple rename of some trivial userbox category, it's not as much of a big deal, because it's an aesthetic change. However, in this particular case it's a functional change (i.e., if something goes wrong with the rename, there actually are spillover effects). --slakr^\ talk / 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename or Merge-n-delete to ((NoAutosign)). Rename for consistency, with compliments for notifying me first. And, if we're already here, it might be an idea to simply deprecate this category all together (i.e., delete it) and instead replace all instances of it with ((NoAutosign)) (identical in function), which future-proofs against naming convention changes as it can be easily redirected if renamed without the tidal wave of category renaming edits :P. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very Important Comment — I forgot to mention: if we take the ((NoAutosign)) route, be sure NOT to subst: the template, as it will break the backreference. Just leave it as "((NoAutosign))" (without the quotes and the nowikis). --slakr^\ talk / 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it will be a good idea. --ジェイターナー ^✉／_✐ 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was multi-merge. User:AMbot sentenced to perform the action. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At best needs a rename, at worst needs a delete. A category for people who are "armed with all the vandal fighting tools". VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#BATTLE. I dislike vandals as much as the next fellow, but this category (and the corresponding userbox) creates too many similarities to actual military combat for my liking. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use Anti-vandal tool, Category:Wikipedians who use Twinkle, Category:Wikipedians who use Vandal Fighter, Category:Wikipedians who use VandalProof, and Category:Wikipedians who use VandalSniper, which would be more useful. Having all five anti-vandalism tools does not merit a category of its own. Individual categories, OTOH, can be very useful. Failing a merge, Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume that humor is discouraged on Wikipedia. Or that's what it feels like. # of things that I have made that have been deleted so far: 3. Sincerely, Sir Intellegence - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Horologium has a good idea. On pages in this category, replace this category with the five categories for the individual tools, then delete. WODUP 09:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not needed and probably not true in anyone's particular case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) - relisting to see if there is consensus for Horologium's merge suggestion before this is deleted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge as suggested above to put the users in all five categories and then delete this category. --Bduke (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge as above. –Pomte 15:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Merge is fine with me if the closing admin wants to go through all that work. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. It seems that due to technical questions we can't get agreement on a name. Perhaps this can be resolved on the category talk page and brought back here in time. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Category:Wikipedian using a PGP Key and Category:Wikipedians who use PGP to ?

Merge both (and probably recat?) to whatever target name concensus decides. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Wikipedians using a PGP Key . Useful for collaboration. Lurker (said · done) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment What makes this software different than all the others? Couldn't this be "Wikipedians interested in computer cryptography" or something like it? —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PGP is used in communication, and would be useful for editors who wish to communicate with others using PGP- for example, people who have reason to believe their communication may be monitored (people living under oppressive regimes, say). Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that it's also being used by some on Wikipedia to help prevent identity/account theft. - jc37 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. In one sense it's more robust than the hash, as the trust is created prior to any comprising of the account. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use PGP. Using a PGP key implies using PGP, but using PGP does not necessarily imply using a PGP key (although it almost always does). Alternatively, merge both to Category:Wikipedian using a PGP key as key should not be capitalized. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge both to Category:Wikipedians using a PGP key as per Lurker and Ben Hocking. (pluralization, capitalization) Horologium (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use OpenPGP encryption. This covers both PGP and GPG, its open source replacement. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC) relisting to try for better consensus on a new name --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge both to Category:Wikipedians using a PGP key for now. I like Avi's suggestion if a category for GPG ever pops up, but until then I think the PGP one will suffice. VegaDark (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - If these are then our only choices, I prefer "who use" over "using". It follows the "who read", "who enjoy", "who listen to", etc. conventions. So how about Category:Wikipedians who use a PGP key. - jc37 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use a PGP key per jc37; I think we ought to avoid using the present progressive tense in category titles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm starting to think that per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) we should probably specify "encryption": Category:Wikipedians who use a PGP encryption key. Any concerns? - jc37 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As one who is using a GPG public/private keypair for encryption, as is most anyone for the past 5–10 years or so I would reckon, I think that if we want precision, we should not use "PGP" but "OpenPGP". Do we know any wikipedians using actual PGP key pairs? Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. My decision here is on the strength of the arguments. While I find some of the keep arguments weak, especially the number of category members, since that is merely a function of transclusion (not an independent decision), Pomte makes the salient point that tips the scale. No prejudice against an attempt to renominate for purposes of a rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians against notability - This is a tough one for me, since (personally), I'm not thrilled with how suggestions of "notability" (or lack thereof) have been used (abused) in discussions. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground; and really, a userpage notice should be enough. There's no need for a category grouping. - jc37 13:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 13:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians who support/oppose. I don't feel strongly about this issue, but precedence seems to suggest that delete is the correct course of action. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and keep all other categories relating to building the encyclopedia, or discussing how it should be built. The 4 or 5 similar ones that have been deleted should be restored--they are not good precedents. I am not and would not be a member of this category, but a number of good people are. It's appropriate to discuss the encyclopedia; soapbox applies to external issues. DGG (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unrelated: The people in this category can check out Wikipedia:Article inclusion, and since I don't want to spam them I'll just note it here. –Pomte 04:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The problem with this category is that it misrepresents users. It would be fine as far as I'm concerned to have a category for people who are against notability as currenty implemented (re:"not a battleground" - constructive criticism of wikipedia on user pages is explicitly protected per WP:USER), but users are put into this category by adding a userbox to their page which has a completely different description. I don't have a good suggestion for a rename, but it would have to be along the lines of "Wikipedians for verifiability over popularity" TheBilly (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:USER applies to userspace content, which this category is not. While it's fine to have the userbox or a userpage notice criticising the notability guidelines or their implementation, it's a different matter to create a grouping of users on that basis, since categories are navigational aids should not be used merely as bottom-of-the-page notices. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless, "not a battleground" doesn't apply to this. This does not fall under "personal grudges, hatred, fear, legal threats". It's prefectly fine to disagaree with what other people are doing. If we forbid dissent against the so-called "consensus", then we can't ever arrive at a new consensus. The guiding principle of all pages in the user, talk, and wikipedia namespace is that whatever is posted there it should be useful to the project. As a "navigational aid", it IS useful to find like-minded editors, and see how they approach things, just as it's useful to look at past deletion precedents, past discussions like this, etc. And whoever said they're not being used, and only being displayed at the bottom of the page? [Citation needed] on that one. TheBilly (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete as a divisive support/oppose category; that it happens to be Wikipedia-related is irrelevant. While "it's appropriate to discuss the encyclopedia", this category is not a forum for discussion. It is either a petition or a factional division; real discussion occurs on the talk pages of the guidelines. What value is there in this category? Why would anyone want or need to browse through a category of editors who support a particular position, except perhaps to violate WP:CANVASS? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep Popularity contests are usually won by the ignorant, and something must be done to stop this trend; people who stand up to this should have a common denominator.--Bedford (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Categories in the article space are navigational aids. Categories in the user space can have a different rationale, and often do. Consensus on Wikipedia as demonstrated through common practise seems to be that user categories, being those that categorise users, are somehow in user space or governed by user space guidance and policies. Categories by definition are divisive, since they define as being "of" or "not of". This category does not create divisiveness, it delineates it. There is a long tradition of Wikipedians categorising by philosophy. Hiding T 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few points. First, categories are not in the article space or the user space; they are in the category namespace. A category is a category, irrespective of the type of page it contains. Second, you write that user categories "can have a different rationale, and often do" ... could you provide an example? Third, the "long tradition" to which you refer is reflected at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, where this category clearly does not belong. Moreover, why do you note that tradition yet ignore the one for deleting support/oppose categories and "not" categories? More generally, can you suggest an actual use for this category? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically categories are not in the article space or the user space; they are in the category namespace. We agree on that. Where our disagreement lies is in the use made of categories by Wikipedians. A category is indeed a category, but what each category categorises is something different each time and different practises have emerged dependent on what is categorised. I wrote that user categories "can have a different rationale, and often do" and you have asked me to prove this. The very fact that they categorise users rather than articles surely demonstrates this. The rationale is that we are grouping Wikipedian users according to their wishes. For example, we categorise users through templates, something we guide against for articles. We allow users to categorise in and create Wikipedia-specific categories, something we try to avoid for articles, since they create self references. We allow philosophies to be outlined on category pages, we allow people to make points with categories that we do not allow in article space. We allow most of the guidance which applies to spaces other than Article space to apply to categories which categorise outside of article space. A category tends to follow the guidance that applies to the pages it is categorising. I hope that explains. Why do I support one thing and not the other? Am I not allowed to do that? Am I not allowed to reason, and to assert that in my opinion this is not like all the other support oppose categories, to state that this is Wikipedia specific and therefore meets our guidance on allowing us to categorise on Wikipedia specific lines? Hiding T 20:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response; it does clarify the situation somewhat. I do agree that article and user categories do not have entirely the same purpose and should not be judged in entirely the same manner. Article categories should group articles on the basis of a defining characteristic, whereas user categories should group users on the basis of a characteristic that can foster encyclopedic collaboration. However, the function is still that of a category – which is to create a grouping for the sake of navigational utility – and not just a bottom-of-the-page notice. Do we agree on that? As for this category in particular, it is certainly your prerogative to assert that this is not like all the other support/oppose categories, but then I would like to ask how you think it is different? After all, this is not the first Wikipedia-related support/oppose category to be nominated and/or deleted (see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). More generally, do you agree that user categories should be useful? (That is, that we should not categorise Wikipedia editors solely for the sake of creating a directory of users?) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your examples, 1 I don't know what it was for, which when you think about it highlights a flaw in the UCFD, 2 should have been deleted since you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you disagree with a foundation issue, 3 and especially 4 have a really poor number of debaters and if the category was vastly populated, something we'll never know, should be reviewed, 5 and 6 I agree with close if not the outcome, 7 and 9 is where for me the rot starts to set in and the merits are not discussed, rather the precedents, 8 I'm unsure of, that's a small pool of debaters arguing poorly, but that's a foundation issue, so...

1 is for opponents of speedy deletion criterion T2. Although the title is unclear, I cannot see how a poorly chosen category title in any way reflects on the UCFD process. Why does the number of debaters matter in 3 or 4? Consensus != numbers; even so, plenty of people had the opportunity to comment in that discussion, and simply chose not to. As for 7 through 9, I'm not sure how you can say that the merits weren't discussed: in each case, the first two paragraphs of the nomination addressed only the merits and said nothing about precedents. In any case, can we agree that the content of the discussion reveals a consistent sentiment against even Wikipedia-related support/oppose categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the debate doesn't tell me what's wrong with category, there's a flaw there somewhere. Oh, and regards consensus, yes, numbers do matter and WP:CONSENSUS makes that very point. A small pool of users in one corner of Wikipedia do not get to overturn another consensus with a larger pool of users made elsewhere. We can argue all day about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise or not if everyone's deaf, but let's not ignore the fact that it fell over. If there were 100 people in a category, why should two people decide it should be deleted? Is that really how Wikipedia works? Not in my book. Since I already picked holes in half the debates, no, I'm not going to agree, especially not when we have all the inclusionist and deletionist and so on and so forth categories, which are just as much support oppose categories as anything else. All you can prove to me is that those debates were closed as they were closed, and that we have a policy which states that Wikipedia can change and we do not have a policy which states a closer can close a debate because some others were closed that way too, and we certainly don't have a policy which states I have to agree with all of them decisions. Do you agree that I did not comment in any of those debates? Looking at a couple of them, had I opposed do you agree the result would have differed? That I did not comment then has no bearing on the fact that I choose to comment now, and I disagree with what went on before. I do not have the yearning within me to reach further back to when these were listed at CFD and find the precedents which would support my view because I do not believe Wikipedia works like that. Consensus is allowed to change. Make your argument, but please do not base it on what has gone before and ask me to accept that. Hiding T 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The debate did tell you what's wrong with the category (namely, that it's a support/oppose category); maybe you just don't like how or what it told you. :-) As regards consensus, I'm not suggesting that numbers are completely irrelevant, but neither should you completely disregard arguments. Your question of whether "had I opposed do you agree the result would have differed" demonstrates that: it depends on how you opposed. If you just wrote "oppose", then no, the results would not have been different. If you attempted to explain how these categories are useful, then it may have.
So "why should two people decide it should be deleted"? Because no one was able to come up with a good reason to keep the category, that's why. There's no conflict between rabid deletionists and inclusionists: editors on either side can be swayed by a good argument for usefulness, and potential usefulness is something that editors consider before they suggest deletion. You keep commenting under the assumption that everyone in a category supports its existence, but I can plainly state that to be false, since I've supported deletion of categories in which I appeared (as have others). So why was I in these category in the first place? Because I used the userbox, and my use of it implied nothing about my opinion of the category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see, because it was a support/oppose category it is bad, regardless of what it supports or opposes. My bad. I don't disregard arguments. I have never stated I disregard arguments. But per guidance I don't disregard feelings and actions either. How I would have commented is neither here nor there now, is it, so colouring my opinion from this distance as being not of worth to impact the debate seems off as well as prejudicial. I'm glad you think it is okay for two people to delete a category a hundred people belong to, and I'm glad you judge everyone by your own standards. I guess I'm just different. I could never delete a category I had doubt should be deleted, per guidance. Hiding T 22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, no, it's not prejudicial. It's fact. If you had simply typed a bolded oppose without providing a reason, your comment would have been given less weight by a closing administrator than if you had provided a reason. That's all I meant to say, and I apologise if any misunderstanding caused you offense. As for your latter comment, apparently we're not different, since I have no doubt that this category should be deleted per WP:NOT. I do not support deletion of categories when I am uncertain (a quick look at this page or its archives should prove that) ... I'm just not uncertain in this case. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my day using the word if made it prejudicial. If you want to assume I would have dome any such thing, you go ahead and prejudge my actions. I'll do no such thing. And if you would delete a category with over a hundred people listed based on the say so of two people, then I'm saddened and disappointed. Hiding T 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess we disagree that in user space categories still have to be navigational aids. I think they can be used as a way of grouping similar users, and that it is for community practise and discussion to decide the limits to such groupings. Certainly they need to be Wikipedia specific. As to whether we agree about whether user categories should be useful, I think that's again tricky. We'd first have to agree on a definition of useful. I think it is fair to assert we interpret the guidance differently. Do we agree that list builders shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system? Hiding T 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so we can both agree that user categories should be useful, even if we do not necessarily agree on the definition of "useful". Is that a fair characterisation? If it is, then what is your definition of "useful"? Mine revolves primarily around the potential of a category to be used in a manner that fosters encyclopedic collaboration. As for your question, I'm not sure how that's an issue. For one thing, I don't think anyone (least of all me) intends to delete all or even most user categories. More generally, I do not believe that user categorisation should be an end in and of itself; it should be a means to an end (encyclopedic collaboration). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My definition of useful is whatever the community finds to be of use. I can't see anyone having an issue with that. The community gets to decide what encourages encyclopedic collaboration. That's the be all and end all. Only Jimbo and the board get to say otherwise, and even then it's not clear who'd win if the community disagreed. Hiding T 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Whatever the community finds to be of use" doesn't really inform CFD discussions... It doesn't set a standard of any kind (the standard I suggested relies on WP:NOT, so it's not as if it lacks consensus) and essentially turns CFD into a pure vote. So, putting aside general questions of process and definitions, why do you think that this particular category is useful? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CFD is therefore broken if what you say is true, since the community decides community consensus. The standard I suggest relies on foundation issues, so it's not as if it can be over-ridden. Haven't I already voiced my opinion? Hiding T 22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the community decides community consensus, but my question is more about how it decides. What standards does it use? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way ... this thread of discussion has gone waaay off-topic.) It's circular and uninformative to say that there is consensus to keep the category because there is community consensus for keeping it. What matters is why there is community consensus. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The community decides how the community decides. Sometimes it decides ten weeks in advance. Sometimes it decides in writing. Sometimes it decides halfway through a debate on something else and sometimes it decides on a wet weekend. Sometimes it decides when you weren't looking and sometimes it decides after someone takes the ball away. It doesn't matter why there is a consensus. We can have a consensus for the worst possible reason, WP:BLP for example. It matters that we test the consensus and be willing to accept it wasn't where we left it. Hiding T 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Unlike the ad and censor categories below, this one actually has the potential to matter. How this fosters collaboration is that N is directly attached to how we create and edit articles to begin with. Contrasted with the censor category, this isn't supporting a policy, but opposing a guideline. Obviously a category supporting N would recruit thousands more people, but this category isn't inherently divisive to spawn such a rival cat. If I ever wanted to canvass people, not for numbers, but for insight into reasons why our current conception of N may be flawed, it would be immensely useful. Special:Whatlinkshere may not be as useful since people could categorize themselves without adding the userbox (unless you want to slap the userbox on them for some reason). It's certainly possible though, that some of these Wikipedians have a flawed or outdated conception of N. –Pomte 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename - I'm not entirely persuaded that there is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose to seek out users in this category, but I'm not yet entirely sure that there isn't either. I think the category could benefit from a rename, however. Perhaps Category:Wikipedians interested in reforming the Wikipedia notability guideline? VegaDark (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I see 152 (currently) reasons to keep this category, the 152 (current) members. Until you get a substantial fraction of them involved here, agreeing with the arguments to delete, I'm not seeing consensus as being generated by the half dozen regulars here even if they were unanimously in favour of deletion. (which they are, in this case, not) I think membership in a category is prima facie an argument that the member supports the existance of the category, and absent canvassing all of them (which I am not advocating), it's specious to argue that "they could have come here and argued for retention". I don't make it a habit to check to see if every category I'm interested in is flagged for deletion, nor should I have to... I notice it, a fair bit of the time, after the fact, and I guess I'll be taking a lot more deleted categories to deletion review if the current trend of the same 1/2 dozen noms/commentors/closers continues. An unfair perception follows, and it's a perception, not reality: I get a strong vibe of "If he supports my nom, then you can close it delete... and then I'll close his nom delete, quoting YOUR support, and then he can close yours delete, quoting MY support". All without any actual collusion, just a confluence of interests and sympathies. Unfair? You bet? Untrue? Probably. But it sure smacks of insularity, so you regulars need to work on widening your circle of participants a lot, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. The strength of argument provided by Timeshifter is most persuasive in this debate which has a near equal number of participants on both sides. Also, comments about using these categories as measures of opinion (Sarek, Hiding) are highly dissuaded by the statistical invalidity of such assertions as argued by Black Falcon. The arguments that there are other advocacy categories are simply OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and are both weak and incorrect. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians against advertisements

Category:Wikipedians for optional advertisements

Category:Wikipedians who think that the Wikimedia Foundation should use advertising

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads, and the essay Wikipedia:Advertisements

There are several issues with these categories. There's (of course) Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground. But there's also the issue that these only concern Wikipedia in that they concern Wikimedia. One "could" argue for these categories there. But they shouldn't be "here". - jc37 12:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground do not apply since the info and discussion is ontopic discussion of Wikipedia-related topics. I agree though that this discussion shouldn't be done via categories. See my "move" comment farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all. Provides ongoing opinion on important Wikipedia issue. The WMF may be in control of the issue, but it will have the most effect here. The Wikiproject deletion is not relevant, since a fair number of the votes were "This isn't a WikiProject".--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete all per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians who support/oppose. I don't feel strongly about this issue, but precedence seems to suggest that delete is the correct course of action. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those don't like categories discussing wikipedia-related issues. So I don't think they set precedents.

There is specific precedent against Wikipedia-related support/oppose categories, as well as more general precedent against all types of support/oppose categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Move away from categories. ~~Keep on wikipedia.~~ (Clarification: I meant to delete the categories, but to keep the old discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Advertisements/Archive 1.) I don't believe these should be categories anymore. Otherwise it looks like a vote. One can't have a vote without wide discussion of all 3 options. The choice for optional ads was not really ever discussed when most people joined the category against ads long ago. The category for optional ads did not exist back then. Most people joined the category against ads when the issue was hot due to impending ads at the time. Keep the pages and discussion on wikipedia since the many users who commented previously can then continue to discuss the issues, and can use their wikipedia user names. This discussion and debate is very important. A lot fewer people are likely to discuss things at Wikimedia since fewer people are registered there (and with different user names in many cases). It can be discussed in both Wikipedia and Wikimedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support suggestion to listify. This also allows it to be hosted in user space, if that is required to keep the information. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't want to keep a list of those who had joined the categories. I only wanted to keep the category introductions, and the discussion. I found a place we could move everything: Wikipedia:Advertisements. We could move everything to archived talk pages there. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I copied the text from the 3 category talk pages and archived it here: Wikipedia talk:Advertisements/Archive 1. This way no matter what happens with the categories, the old discussion is not lost. Current discussion is continuing here: Wikipedia talk:Advertisements. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This is related to building the encyclopedia. What WMF does affects us at WP. DGG (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that in general, such support/oppose categories are better off listified. With lists and straw polls and actual discussion, it's easier to understand when and why and under what context people support/oppose any of these issues, which helps facilitate the debate. –Pomte 04:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - there are all types of advocacy user cats, and there is nothing bad about any of these. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, there aren't any left. Virtually all have been deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and dozens of precedents or listify. These types of virtual petitions simply formalise factionalisation without doing anything to engender discussion about the issue. That the categories are Wikipedia-related says nothing about their actual value. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there turns out to be no consensus to delete, I support Timeshifter's proposal. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for the same reasons that Blake and DGG said.--Bedford (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DGG only said that they're Wikipedia-related, which says nothing about the value of the categories (we clearly do not keep every page that is Wikipedia-related). Blake stated that "there are all types of advocacy user cats", which is incorrect. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I'm not opposed to Timeshifter's suggestions. I'll ask if he can implement them so that we can see how they would look. (That can be done without affecting the category during the discussion.) - jc37 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Advertisements/Archive 1. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Keep all as is, no listifying. These are useful as gauges of consensus and I don't agree that there is precedence that these categories are deleted. There may be a precedence that categories nominated are deleted, but there is also a precedence that other categories exist. Hiding T 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A user category haphazardly populated by userbox transclusions and self-categorisation is quite possibly the worst gauge of consensus. Even if we ignore for a moment the fact that consensus is not a headcount, these categories are not reliable even as headcounts, since a single edit to a userbox that may go unnoticed for months could virtually empty any one of these three. As for your disagreement with the fact that "there is precedence that these categories are deleted", please see WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians who support/oppose. Finally, as no one is suggesting deletion of all or even most user categories, I do not see how the fact that other categories (in general) exist is relevant here. Other categories of this type do not exist and have consistently been deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the worst gauge of consensus is not listening to people, not attempting to discern intent from action, not keeping yourself open to all possibilities. I think that that one edit to a userbox might be expected to be noticed, but that's not really what we're arguing about, is it. We have a category here with users listed in it. Let's debate the merits of this category rather than your hypothetical one, since that's what we're supposed to do. Maybe I'll protect the userbox so that accidental edit doesn't happen. As to OTHERSTUFF, either OTHERSTUFF applies that OTHERSTUFF has been deleted, and so can apply to the OTHERSTUFF which hasn't, or we politely agree to ignore OTHERSTUFF and again concentrate on the merits of this category. Other categories of this type do exist though, so I think it is futile to state otherwise. If they don't exist, how can they consistently have been deleted? And let us not forget consensus can change. Thanks for pointing me to WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians who support/oppose, which these categories don't typically mirror. Also, those stats present a bias, and as such I think we should be careful of how we use them. Hiding T 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what "hypothetical" category you're referring to, as my comments were directed at these three categories. Anyway, I certainly do not advocate ignoring people, but there is no basis for implying that the presence of editors in a category indicates consensus for category's existence. Does the presence of articles in a category indicate that there is a consensus among the editors of all of those articles about whether the category should exist or how it should be named? Of course not. As for your claim regarding the list at WP:UCFD/I, please note that there are multiple discussions specifically for Wikipedia-related support/oppose categories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. As for OTHERSTUFF, there is a difference between other stuff that has been considered, debated, and deleted, and other stuff that simply hasn't been discussed. But, I would like to focus on the merits of this category: so, I would like to ask you the same question that I posed to Lar. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The hypothetical category was the one to which your hypothesis happened. We're discussing those examples elsewhere, so yes, I agree we can put them away here. I disagree that some OTHERSTUFF is different to Some OTHERSTUFF. OTHERSTUFF is OTHERSTUFF. As to what use these cats are, I already said that. You said you didn't agree. We're starting to get circular here. If the only argument here is to listify, well I don't believe list builders should be tearing down the category structure. Hiding T 22:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, my hypothesis applied to this category, not to any hypothetical one. So, just to be clear, you consider these categories to be useful as "gauges of consensus". Is that correct? If so, then would you please respond to my comment directed at that claim: A user category populated by userbox transclusions and self-categorisation is quite possibly the worst gauge of consensus. Even if we ignore for a moment the fact that consensus is not a headcount, these categories are not reliable even as headcounts, since a single edit to a userbox that may go unnoticed for months could virtually empty any one of these three. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already did that the first time. It is not the worst possible gauge, it is no worse than a list which could be edited to put anybody's name on it, your vandalism idea doesn't nullify the use of the category whilst the template isn't vandalised and doesn't nullify any idea about consensus not being a headcount because consensus is not not being a headcount in certain instances of gauging consensus. Just because you have an opinion does not make you right. Please read all our policies and guidance and take them in unison. We gauge consensus in many different ways. Were I looking to delete WP:N using this category as a basis would be a really bad idea. Were I looking to see the strength of opposition to WP:N to support the argument that it is disputed, it would not. When I say I can see uses for the category please respect that. Otherwise please delineate absolutely how this is in no shape manner or form of no use at all to anyone on Wikipedia. Hiding T 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you're asking of me is analogous to requesting that I prove the non-existence of God. (Also, the burden of justification lies with those seeking to retain a page or page content.) No one can prove that anything could never be useful, but I, the nominator, and others have (here and in past nominations) provided arguments for why this type of category is not useful. If the only usefulness of this category that you can identify is as an indicator that WP:N is somewhat controversial, then forgive me if I'm not impressed, as that could be seen from any AFD or the talk page of any notability guideline. (In no way, shape, or form can this category serve as a valid measure of the strength of opposition to WP:N; it can only inform us that such opposition exists.) And yes, I do consider this category the worst possible gauge of consensus because it involves no discussion and no consideration of arguments; it is nothing more than a petition. While I do not accept the principle that an assertion of utility should be respected as demonstration of utility, I think we've exhausted any unique discussion we could have about this issue. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not analogous to disproving the existence of God. It is asking you to prove your assertion that this is harmful to fostering collaboration on the encyclopedia. Either you can do that or you have an empty reason. If the only reasons for usefulness I can come up with is that a number of people have found it of use, it helps identify trends, it helps delineate issues, it helps calm divisiveness, it helps foster collaboration, you are entitled to diagre. You are not entilted to say they have no balidity, and you are not entitled to point me back to a chain of debates which each in turn point back a chain to a very flawed category which should not have been created. No, that's not right. Either explain how this can prove so toxic to Wikipedia or cease belittling me. Battleground does not apply here since nobody is using these categories to attack one another, nor is there open warfare on user pages regarding these issues which has descended into grudge forming. Indeed, if that were true of this category it would be true of any category. Does categorising Wikipedians who are members of the prd WikiProject see them attacked by users who detest that system? I think not. Further, whether soap box applies in this instance is weak in the extreme. Maybe it does, but if it does it does more so to the many political user categories we have. Now this can be seen as an OTHERSTUFF argument, but as that essay reminds us, when there's a point behind otherstuff we disregard the otherstuff and tackle the point. And the point is this; if overtly political categories can be kept and proliferated widely across user space, then a category where it is not clear that soapbox applies, since it is not clear if this is advocacy or self-identification, if it is propoganda or an acceptable attempt to generate discussion or even if it is recruitment or an attempt to persuade people should certainly be kept. As to past precedence, let's turn back once more to WP:NOT, and remind ourselves that rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided... Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Let's ignore the precedents and see how the discussion shapes. Hiding T 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep all as is. per Hiding. I do not buy the argument that these categories are divisive, they show a view about a wikipedia specific thing. I do not buy the argument that they belong on some other wiki than here, most of us do not have accounts elsewhere. I do not buy the argument that they should be lists, userboxes, or templates. A category is the natural organizational scheme here. If one advances the argument that they should be "Category:Wikimedians against advertisements" (median instead of pedian) that's fine. The rest of these arguments seem fatally flawed. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will not try to dispute any of your points, but would like to ask one question: How are the categories useful? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are as useful, individually, as Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians is, for example. (I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :)... the point is that these categories all denote an opinion about the project itself) Taken in aggregate, the three categories provide an instant view of the relative level of the various opinions of those people who care enough to make their opinion known on the matter, one that can change over time as opinions shift, without the bother of taking periodic surveys or straw polls. But the onus is on the nominator to show why they are not useful. Which the nominator has not done, in my view. These categories are harmless and that is reason enough, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response. I've always thought that the burden of justification lies with those arguing to retain content (at least that's what's always stated at AFD) ... and, no, I'm not a deletionist. :-) As for their usefulness of instant straw polls, I can see where you're coming from, but my training in statistics simply does not allow me to consider that a potential use: any conclusion about the distribution of views in the Wikipedia community drawn from these categories would, in all likelihood, be invvalid. Anyway, thank you for offering your clarifications. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lar wrote: "the three categories provide an instant view of the relative level of the various opinions of those people who care enough to make their opinion known on the matter ..." This is exactly why I think the categories should be eliminated. Because some people were putting totals next to links to the 3 categories, and then using the totals to make points about the relative popularity of their position. This is an unfair election process, or even a survey process. It is inaccurate to believe it is representative of what current opinions are, or would be after detailed discussion of all options. Yet some people are saying that it is exactly that, as you are doing ("instant view"). It was actually, I believe, a "push poll" at the time the first category was created (the one against any ads). At the time I believe it was pushed out as a vote against an attempt to use ads. I think I read somewhere that some ads had already been subtly implemented (?), and there was a massive objection to THAT specific attempt to implement ads. (I wasn't a registered wikipedia user back then, so I am not sure if I have this history correct). There was little or no reasoned discussion BEFORE this attempted ad implementation, I believe. The wikiproject and category were basically pop quizzes to mobilize against any attempt to use ads. I also would have objected to ads at the time in those circumstances. Nowadays I support optional ads. Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians is a longterm category, and there is an obvious counter-category Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. And in all seriousness, I doubt that most people are totally for one or the other. Neither of those categories got most of their members in a period of turmoil, I believe. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I support deleting the categories because there is no need for the categories to exist in order to have a real discussion. The old separate discussions are now archived together at Wikipedia talk:Advertisements/Archive 1. This way we can have a real discussion of ALL the issues and options, and we can easily refer back to ALL of the previous discussions. Wikipedia talk:Advertisements is for ongoing discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does deleting the categories help the discussion? That seems an irrelevant point to me. Hiding T 22:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my reply to Lar higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remeber them being created. My memory differs somewhat to yours, but I think I stayed out of that debate beyond registering an oppose. I still don't see them as hindering any debate. Is this recent, i.e. can you show diffs? Hiding T 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may not have the early history correct for the category and wikiproject against ads. The category was created in October 2005. I believe the wikiproject was around before the category.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I can't pull up a revision history for the WikiProject. See the MFD that deleted it: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads. See also the previous MFD that kept it: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads. That first MFD was started in January 2006.

The category for ads was created in October 2006. I created the category for optional ads in January 2007.--Timeshifter (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was selectively rename and delete. On the surface, this is a simple matter of Wikiproject member category naming convention. This is complicated however by the fact that some members of the category are not members of the Wikiproject. Consensus of this discussion is that this category should not exist except for the Wikiproject. Therefore, the Wikiproject userbox will be redirected to the renamed category and the category will then be emptied of other members. As noted, any user is permitted to join the Wikiproject at any time. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians against censorship to Category:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship members - This is clearly for members of the WikiProject. Noting that the WikiProject uses "members". (Though I'm concerned about the potential gammatical confusion in the new name.) - jc37 12:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as nominator. - jc37 12:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians who support/oppose. I don't feel strongly about this issue, but precedence seems to suggest that delete is the correct course of action. It's somewhat odd that I'm the one suggesting delete… Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<grin> - Welcome to the club (Inclusionists who find themselves suggesting deletion). Someone should make T-shirts or jackets : ) - jc37 13:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or a category... *gd&r*--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just motivated me to pseudo-create a new category. Check out my user page to see if you can guess which one it is… (Note: this is all meant in good fun, and since I'm only "pseudo-creating" it, I don't think it will be a problem. If it is a problem, just let me know and I'll remove it.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as is because of the awkwardness of the proposed name. DGG (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep; the WikiProject seems valid so they can rightly have a category. Rename, preferably to something less awkward than the proposed name. It should clearly indicate that the user is a member of the WikiProject. If you recall our old discussion on WikiProject member category naming convention, this is a good example of a category that shouldn't fit the format. –Pomte 07:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fine with that. How about using the current convention of Category:Wikipedians by website - Category:Wikipedians who contribute to WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with "Wikipedians who contribute to WikiProject X" becoming the new convention. It's accurate, and presumably non-polemic. - jc37 07:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks like a good naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Members of a WikiProject don't necessarily contribute to the WikiProject itself... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure we do : ) - I do various WikiGnomish tasks for WikiProject Comics. Also, typically a WikiProject has a list or a category of all their associated articles, so in that sense also, they do contribute to the WikiProject. - jc37 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selectively rename to Category:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship members.

Although this is a single category, it currently reflects three distinct affiliations: membership in WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, support for the policy that Wikipedia is not censored, and opposition to censorship in general. Per ample precedent in favour of deleting any support/oppose categories, even when they apply to Wikipedia, only the first categorisation should be preserved. Given the complex way that this category is populated, I propose the following course of action:

Create Category:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship members per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject.
Edit the WikiProject-related userboxes to categorise into the newly-created category: ((User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech)), ((User:Disavian/Userboxes/Free Speech))
Edit the support/oppose userboxes (unrelated to the WikiProject) to remove user categorisation: ((User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes/User anti-Fairness Doctrine)), ((User sensible freespeech))
Edit ((User:TheTrueSora/freespeech)) to remove user categorisation ... the userbox merely expresses support for the WikiProject, not actual membership or participation; in that respect, it's similar to a "friends of ..." category (see precedent).
Empty the category of any users who added themselves manually (i.e. without a userbox); if appropriate, they can place themselves into the new WikiProject category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorse Black Falcon's proposal. The name isn't ideal, but it's going to be awkward anyway due to "Wikipedians" being in the WikiProject name. One of those userboxes has me cracking up. –Pomte 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endorse BF's proposal, though I'm straddling the fence on which target name is better : ) - (I prefer the new suggestion, but I'm not sure if we're not better off just doing that with a group nomination.) - jc37 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, all the solutions here are in search of a problem which does not exist. The category is of use, helps gauge consensus, follows in the tradition of other categories and is used by such a large number of Wikipedians I don't understand how anyone can expect any conse4nsus in this debate could trump the consensus demonstrated by all the people using it that this category should exist as is. Not one person categorising themselves saw an issue with this category. Through their actions is consensus defined, not in this debate with its limited participants. Hiding T 17:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record there are over 1000 users so listed. Hiding T 17:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Allow me to address your points individually:

"The category is of use" – not in its current form. It currently groups together members of a WikiProject, editors who oppose censorship in general, editors who oppose online censorship, editors who oppose censorship on Wikipedia, and editors who support free speech as long as it's "sensible". Due to this, the category is unable to tell us aything about the characteristics of the members.

The category may not be of use to you, but I find it useful. Please don't presume to speak for everyone. Hiding T 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, then: how do you find the category useful? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already said. Hiding T 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only things you've said in this regard are "the category is of use" (an assertion without an explanation) and "helps gauge consensus". Is that it: "helps gauge consensus"? If so, please see my comment below Lar's posting and my comment in the advertising discussion above. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"helps gauge consensus" – a category haphazardly populated by userbox transclusions and self-categorisation is quite possibly the worst gauge of consensus. Even if we ignore for a moment the fact that consensus is not a headcount, the category is not reliable even as a headcount, since a single edit to a userbox that may go unnoticed for months could substantially empty it.

Please see my rebuttal to this point elsewhere on the page. Basically, discuss the merits here, not the hypothetical. To discuss the hypothetical, let's hypothetically protect the template. Let's agree that consensus is not a headcount, but rather an attempt to discern what the community as a whole feels about somethin, and that when a 1000 or more Wikipedians have acted in a certain manner their actions can speak louder than words and be used to discern consensus. Community practise is one method of determining consensus. Know them by their deeds. Hiding T 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wanted us to discuss the merits only, then why did you bring up the issue of "gauges consensus" as a supposed advantage of the category? And I am discussing specifically this category, and not any hypotheticals. As for hypothetical protection of the template, our protection guidelines would not allow that. Finally, what is your basis for claiming that the presence of editors in a category indicates consensus for category's existence? Does the presence of articles in a category indicate that there is a consensus among the editors of all of those articles about whether the category should exist or how it should be named? Of course not. If actions indeed speak louder than words, then all we have is 1000 people chose to use one of several userboxes; it says absolutely nothing about the category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we skip the discussion about interpreting our protection policy and guidance. Neither you nor I gets to declare what the consensus is on that, and I don't want to start a huge meta debate about me hypothetically protecting a category from your hypothetical edit. I'll agree you may be right if you agree I may be right and we can put that to one side. What is my basis for deciding what constitutes acting towards developing a consensus? WP:CONSENSUS and community practise. What's yours? Your article point makes no sense to me. If one editor adds the same category to every article on Wikipedia, would every editor on Wikipedia be bound by it? I think we're getting far from the beaten track here. Can we not go back to the old days were people shook hands and said I don't agree with you, but I sure like the cut of your jib? If actions didn't speak louder than words we'd have a harder time of building this encyclopedia what with all the time we're conceding to this debate. Hiding T 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we can certainly agree to disagree, but it's unfortunate when disagreement comes about merely as a result of failure to understand or miscommunication. Anyway, if that's what you prefer, I won't comment on this point so long as you do not bring it up again. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea to what you are responding here. If you think it is possible that one editor could add the same category to every article and then every editor be bound by that action, then I vehemently disagree. Since I doubt that is your intent, I would hope you would concede that an example that works in article space is not always appropriate for user space and that when we;re discussing apples it's best to keep oranges in the fruit bowl. Hiding T 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"follows in the tradition of other categories" – All for/against and support/oppose categories have been deleted, with the exception of the ones currently nominated. If anything "tradition" is unambiguously in favour of deletion.

All so nominated. Please be aware that consensus can change. I'll have a look at the debates another day and see what can be discerned from them, but let's keep in mind OTHERSTUFF. Either it cuts both ways or it doesn't cut at all. Hiding T 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a difference between OTHERSTUFF that came about as a result of a series of discussions and OTHERSTUFF that exists solely because no one had, until yet, bothered to nominate them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting spin. Forgive me if I turn the ball over and spin it the other way. There is a difference between OTHERSTUFF that came about as a result of a series of discussions and OTHERSTUFF that exists because everyone who looks at it agrees it should exist and doesn't therefore see the value in nominating it for a deletion they would not support. Hope that clarifies another viewpoint. Hiding T 22:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. Now that I like! :-) I still don't agree with you (after all, it is clear from this discussion that "everyone who looks at it" doesn't agree that it should exist), but let's agree to disagree (as above). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the consensus demonstrated by all the people using it" – Most of the people in the category are there because they transclude a particular userbox, not because they made any conscious choice to place themselves in the category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This makes no sense. Either they consciously added the userbox or they didn't. Hiding T 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but we're discussing the existence of the category, not of the userbox. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh. So you know on what basis they added the userbox then? Hiding T 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but neither do you. So, let's not make any assumptions. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I did. I think you did. You assumed everyone in the category didn't want to be there and found it of no use. I was allowing the possibility that actually, they did. Hiding T 22:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all. I didn't make any claims whatsoever regarding the opinions of those in the category, except to point out that we can't automatically assume that they support the category's existence just because they're in it. While some probably do, others probably don't. I was most content to leave out any such speculation from my comments. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the people in the category are there because they transclude a particular userbox Either that's the speculation you were trying to avoid or a grounded fact. Me, I'd rather sit in the middle ground and accede all possibilities. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume good faith that people within that category could be listed there because they want to be. Hiding T 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Hiding. Trying to delete this category strikes me as a bad idea. Trying to move it to a project specific category is misguided. I strongly agree that "Wikipedia is not censored" and that this is a good thing but I have absolutely no interest in being a project member. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my response to Hiding. As for "trying to move it to a project specific category", please note that the entire category would not be relocated (at least per my proposal). Only the userboxes that reflect an affiliation with the project would be transferred. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm responding to the original proposal, which is to rename the category. The proposal says nothing about userboxes and I have no opinion about moving userboxes around as long as the category itself stays in place. I joined the category (now that I am aware of it) without use of a userbox so any userbox movement won't affect me. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Even if we put aside issues of utility, does a "Wikipedians against censorship" category make any sense in the first place? After all, is there anyone who will actually admit to being pro-censorship? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The spoiler brigade, one side of the paedophile clash, there was that Timmy thing a while back, people who don't like the nude images, the people who get worried about kids reading Wikipedia, the people who self censor so as to avoid swearing, um, there's more but will that do? Hiding T 22:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, yes, but would any of them admit to supporting censorship? Whatever they do is done for the sake of readers, for the sake of children, out of "common decency", or to protect Wikipedia against invasion by nihilists, communists, nationalists, terrorists, heretics, infidels, liberals, Satanists, cabalists, pornographers, social democrats, Tories, anarchists, and people who insist that Miller Lite "tastes great" more than it is "less filling". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support censorship where it is appropriate. There are such places. I support editorial control where it is appropriate. There are such places as well. But I also support the notion that Wikipedia is not censored as a good foundational principle for the project. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite a few of the Timmy people openly supported censorship, as did quite a few of the paedophile people. I can't recall specific examples of people stating yes, I do mean censorship in the other debates, so I won't assert they did, but they carried on arguing in the face of being told that Wikipedia is not censored, so... Hiding T 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, simply arguing in the face of being told that WP:NOT#CENSORED does not necessarily make one explicitly pro-censorship (again, there are some many euphemisms...). By the way, what is this Timmy incident? It's the first time I've heard of it and it's caught my interest. I'd appreciate if you could provide a link (or an approximate date of when it happened) so that I could try to read about it. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My memory is flawed so I may have the name wrong, but it had something to do with putting a picture of a dog or something on articles which were safe for children. I can't remember if Timmy was the dog or a hypothetical child. Or something. It was, god, maybe 18 months ago? Hiding T 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After trying to absorb everything above, has this been said: Aside from promoting the WikiProject, all the category does is link to the censor policy as if to support it. 1000 people support the policy, great. The fact that it is policy implies that there is overwhelming consensus for it. If you can't find 1000 people over 2 years to confirm support for some policy, that policy is in deep trouble. The next time we have a debate about WP:CENSOR, is it valid to refer to this category for consensus? If you presented this number to the Timmy or paedophile people, would it convince them? I don't know them to predict the answer, but it may be no considering that Hiding says that did not balk as its status as policy, and the category's "against" tone being divisive. Is this fundamentally different from, for instance, Category:Wikipedians against original research, even though it seems no one can reasonably argue against NOR? –Pomte 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - Single member in category, no reason to keep, collaboration can occur on talk page of article. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The Dan Patrick Show went off the air on 17 August 2007. J B 82^c 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: this was moved from WP:CFD by me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the show seems to be in syndication, people can still listen to it. –Pomte 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per (1) narrow scope, (2) limited population - only 1 user - despite 8 months of existence, (3) questionable collaborative potential: how does listening to a radio show increase an editor's desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. Even if there were 1000 people in this category, There would only be one page that these people could collaborate on, so they might as well just use the talk page. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Rock[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Rock to Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-rock

Speedy rename, see rationale for #Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Pop. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Pop[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Pop to Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-pop

Speedy rename to match J-pop and Category:J-pop. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Electric folk[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Electric folk to Category:Wikipedians who listen to electric folk

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Thrash metal[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Thrash metal to Category:Wikipedians who listen to thrash metal

Speedy rename to fix capitalisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shoegazing Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who listen to shoegazing

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by music genre. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. –Pomte 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)

Delete per precedent. –Pomte 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. It is also unclear which school it refers to. --Bduke (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Public domain licensing

I propose renaming this category to Category:Public domain licensing Wikipedians in order to match everything else in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia contribution licensing. This will serve as a parent category to current and future public domain licensing categories (such as one for images, if we don't already have one). --- RockMFR 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nom. Marlith ^T/C 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Modify as nominated. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a category for speakers of the Kansai dialect, a regional dialect of Japanese. This is not a distinct ISO-recognised language, and so need not exist separately.

Modify each userbox to categorise into the appropriate subcategory of Category:User ja, or delete, as nominator and per extensive precedent for merging and deleting "Wikipedians by non-ISO regional dialect" user categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modify to categorize under Category:User ja. –Pomte 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modify the userboxes, then delete this category per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by a userbox that expresses support for the idea of Chinese reunification. Thus, it is not an interest category, but a political ideology category. Whether deliberately or not, it bypasses the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4 and prevailing consensus against categorisation of users by political ideology (and, obviously, against miscategorisation of any kind, as it the case here). No prejudice to creating Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese reunification without use of the userbox. For additional context, see the template history. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The supporters only form a subset of the interest category, so this isn't strictly miscategorization. People who don't support it, or people who are neutral, can still rightly categorize themselves within it (they wouldn't have a userbox, but that's beside the point). The userbox here is just one aspect of the category, and I don't think it need to be looked on as the sole reason for the category. –Pomte 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the category members currently are only those who use the template (see whatlinkshere). Also, this particular series of edits is the reason for my belief that the category was created solely to supplement the userbox. More generally, I don't think we should populate "interest" categories with political support/oppose categories. Supporting or opposing something doesn't imply an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. I have fairly strong political views on racism, abortion, fiscal policy, nuclear proliferation, and many other issues, yet I've never made anything more than minor edits to articles about any of these topics, and have no interest whatsoever in collaborating about them. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no doubt that is the sole reason for the creation of this category, but there may still be valid unrelated reasons for keeping this category, namely collaboration I guess, which I shall leave for any actual collaborators to defend.

You have "no prejudice to creating Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese reunification without use of the userbox." For clarity, does this mean users can skirt around the issue by simply adding the category to their userpage, which may or may not already contain the userbox? I definitely agree to avoiding political support/oppose categories, but any "interest in" category is bound to contain people who in reality support/oppose the subject anyway, and it's going to be clear what the intersection is as long as the userbox remains.

What you say about support/oppose vs. interest assumes that "interest in" categories automatically imply interest in encyclopedic interest, which I have never found intuitive. –Pomte 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a user manually adds the category to his/her userpage simply to skirt around the issue, there's really nothing that we can do. However, I think that most people wouldn't do that. Also, while any interest category "is bound to contain people who in reality support/oppose the subject anyway", I think deletion without prejudice to proper recreation is warranted in cases where all category members are there because of a support/oppose userbox. In essence, this is a case of a valid interest category populated invalidly by a political userbox; if the category function was removed from the userbox, this category would become empty and subject to deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support both rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese reunification and removal from the userbox. —Scouter Sig 18:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose a little tinkering with the userbox is all that's needed.--Bedford (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Chinese reunification. If they support it, they are most likely interested in it, and even if not, they can always remove themselves from the category. This is also the only category to include "in the subject of" in the title of the category, and I don't think it is necessary, so this needs a rename at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"If they support it, they are most likely interested in it..." Most people support lots of political goals, but I don't think we can infer that they have an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. A lot of people vote for (i.e. support) a particular political party, but surely most of them do not edit articles about the political parties they support. I support or oppose, among other things: secularism, the election of Jacob Zuma to the leadership of the ANC, human trafficking, research into alternative energy sources, etc. Yet, I've never edited articles relevant to these topics and have no interest in doing so. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, you convinced me. Delete. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for the unification of Wikipedia without prejudice towards recreation under the proposed new name. –Pomte 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:All Wikipedian by political ideology categories and numerous other precedents listed here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per precedent. –Pomte 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per everything. Marlith ^T/C 04:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep interesting category, definitely could foster support with others in the cat.--Bedford (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How so? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)

Delete per precedent. –Pomte 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Wikipedians who listen to country to Category:Wikipedians who listen to country music (see Country music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to folk to Category:Wikipedians who listen to folk music (see Folk music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to psychedelic to Category:Wikipedians who listen to psychedelic music (see Psychedelic music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to grunge to Category:Wikipedians who listen to grunge music (see Grunge music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal to Category:Wikipedians who listen to heavy metal music (see Heavy metal music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to hip hop to Category:Wikipedians who listen to hip hop music (see Hip hop music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to pop to Category:Wikipedians who listen to pop music (see Pop music)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to punk to Category:Wikipedians who listen to punk rock (see Punk rock)
Category:Wikipedians who listen to rock to Category:Wikipedians who listen to rock music (see Rock music)

Nominator's rationale: In each case, to match the title of the main article and avoid grammatically ambiguous titles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest Psychedelic music instead of Psychedelic rock, as Wikipedian could have put themselves into that category without knowing about the userbox, which is only about psychedelic rock. –Pomte 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good suggestion; I've changed the nomination accordingly. It's always possible for a separate "psychedelic rock" category to be split out by modifying the userbox code. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename all to "interested in" versions (e.g. Category:Wikipedians interested in country music). People listen to all sorts of music. I could probably qualify to be in every one of these categories, as at one point in time I have probably listened to songs from each of these genres, even if unintentionally (switching radio stations, etc.) I hope this shows that, as is, these categories are not helpful to Wikipedia at all. If if this is for collaboration, it should be renamed to something that will show that. delete all if no consensus to rename, rename all per nom if no consensus for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I prefer deletion over renaming to "interested in...", as I doubt that most of the users in these categories are expressing an encyclopedically-relevant interest in a particular genre (the userboxes mostly include terminology such as "likes", "enjoys", "is a fan of", and so on). If the categories are to be kept, I think they should be kept under title that reflect their actual scope and purpose as opposed to titles that reflect what we would like their scope and purpose to be. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are partially proving my point. It isn't helpful at all to categorize people who "likes", "enjoys", etc. My theory, however, is that the people who no longer fall within the category bounds will remove themselves from the category, so I don't particularly think renaming the category to "interested in" would be bad. VegaDark (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. Marlith ^T/C 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. As for Vega's comments, I listen to country music, but I'm not "interested" in it, per se, as I have less than zero musical ability. —Scouter Sig 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: why complicate things?--Bedford (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused ... how does this complicate things? The proposed renames ensure that the category and article titles are consistent, and so should actually simplify/clarify matters. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should already be clear what the category titles signify with the context of "listen to...," so adding one word can be seen as complicating things. "Music" seems to be used as a sort of disambiguation, which isn't necessary with categories (saying that one "listens to heavy metal music" sounds silly, but that's just me). It seems unlikely that people would search for the category/article based on the name of the other. –Pomte 08:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While "listen to" certainly provides context, the present titles seem incomplete and awkward to me. In part, it's due to the tempotation to pluralise the names to produce categories for editors who listen to heavy metals, punks, and rocks. :) If both versions are grammatically correct, then that leaves two issues: personal preference and convention. Personal preference is obviously something that can't be argued, but convention seems to support the proposed rename, since only about one-fifth of the categories in Category:Wikipedians by music genre fail to match the title of the main article for the genre. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The userbox says "This user is a Kolmogorov enthusiast." Essentially a category for people who like Andrey Kolmogorov? Past precedent exists for deleting categories like these, as they are too narrow or unhelpful for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Even as someone who capitalizes upon the results of Kolmogorov's work day in and day out, I have to admit this is too narrow to be useful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep COuld foster support for improvements in related articles.--Bedford (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If by "related articles" you mean "a single article", then I guess you would be right. Having a category for every individual article on Wikipedia, however, would allow for over 2 million categories, which we don't want. For a single article such as this, people should use the talk page to collaborate. VegaDark (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. I will add the contents of the current categories to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians by Erdős number so that any names currentluy missing from Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number may be added in the proper format of the page (and also because I'm not going through all the work to correlate user names to real names). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 2

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 3

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 4

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 5

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 6

This is already listified at Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number, so categories are unnecessary. Additionally, I would argue that there is no benefit to seek out someone with a number of, say 4 vs. someone with a number of 6. These are more of "achievement" categories than something that can be used for collaboration. At minimum these should all be merged to one category. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all as nom, merge all if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listify all to their appropriate sections in Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number, in case any users in the category are missing from the list. A list affords editors the opportunity to provide details that they could not give in a category. Moreover, grouping editors by Erdős number doesn't really foster encyclopedic collaboration, and I agree that these are essentially achievement categories, which are discouraged. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The list makes for better reading anyway. –Pomte 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge individual number categories into a single category, perhaps Category:Wikipepdians interested in Erdős numbers, which is more-or-less encyclopedic (after listifying). (but not my COI) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How does having an Erdős number of 6 or less translate into an interest in subject of Erdős numbers? As far as I know, Erdős numbers only indicate collaborative distance from Paul Erdős, not a specific subject expertise or interest. Is there another factor at work of which I'm not aware? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Ugh. —Scouter Sig 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all not useful for collaboration, not verifiable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, actually most, if not all, Wikipedian categories are not verifiable. But I suppose that it does make the point that perhaps some things should require verifiability. I dunno. - jc37 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to the closer - This is just in case it may be accidentally missed : ) - Several of the above commenters suggest/agree with merging to the list (even those in support of deletion). - jc37 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can not think of any benefit to Wikipedia by categorizing users in to this category. Numerous precedents exist to delete "Wikipedians by template use" categories. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and extensive precedent. This category cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this category to keep things simple for everyone. –Pomte 09:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Redundant- there is also a Category:WikiProject Keep It Simple participants Lurker (said · done) 15:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Similar people should eb able to find others faster, and this will do it.--Bedford (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Seems like this category should be given more time now that it has been clarified; perhaps it can come back here if it does not prove useful for collaboration in the coming weeks. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One person's definition of "school stories" may differ from the next person's. This is too subjective to foster any sort of collaboration, and contains only one user. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(changed to neutral per Bashereyre's clarification) Delete per nom. What are "school stories"? Are they stories that are read in school or during the school years? Under that definition, this category would include readers of everything from Hamlet to Tom Sawyer to Green Eggs and Ham. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: from the cat page:

This category is for Wikipedians who love the exploits of Billy Bunter, JCT Jennings, Just William & Co.

Evidently, this only applies to a single Wikipedian. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no scope. –Pomte 09:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per every UCFD discussion we had in the history of the universe. Marlith ^T/C 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- there are lots of people out there from the British English-speaking communities who know exactly what school stories are. Bashereyre (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The category is for the specific genre, then ... that changes things somewhat. However, absent a clear category description, we oughtn't assume that speakers of British English would necessarily realise the category's intended scope. I've now linked to the relevant article at the category page. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete even if we know what it is, it's not useful for collaboration here: Category:Wikipedians who read restroom graffiti anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Bashereyre.--Bedford (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Dislike" category. Numerous precedents exist to delete these. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and extensive precedent against "dislike" categories. This should be a userpage notice at most; also, it would be more productive to raise any issues at a relevant talk page rather than forming a category for it. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete discuss instead. –Pomte 09:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Faction-building is not constructive. If you have an issue with Wikipedia, raise it at the village pump. (P.S. I have no idea what this scrolling notice is). Lurker (said · done) 15:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (but perhaps it's served it's purpose.) As the Foundation installed the non-removable scrolling notice without contacting members, this protest seems appropriate. But it's now no longer scrolling and it is removable, so perhaps its served its purpose and can now be marked "historical". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just delete. Categories are not marked as historic. --Bduke (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep makes a statement on how certain users like Wikipedia to be.--Bedford (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userboxes, userpage notices, and/or comments on talk pages can do that. The category is useful only if it has navigational value, but why would any editor need to find someone "who dislike[s] the scrolling fundraising notice"? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. WODUP 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No article on Illogicopedia, so naturally, as per precedent, this is not useful and should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, judging from the name, the precedent of the discussion for Category:Wikipedians who use Uncyclopedia would seem to apply. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent cited by Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There are a lot of websites out there, we can't have a category for every one. Lurker (said · done) 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm the creator of the category, but I can't disagree. --MrMetalFLower (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn, I didn't realize this had been to UCFD so recently. I'll renom sometime down the road if necessary. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate Wikipedia category, not useful for collaboration. Perhaps the users within can reminisce about how these categories used to be allowed. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listify to Wikipedia:League of Old Codgers or Wikipedia:Old Codgers' League. This was discussed recently, at here, where a decision was reached to rename the category. However, the more I think about it, the less I think it's appropriate to establish and maintan these types of joke leagues or "cabals" via categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oops, I didn't realize how recently this had been here. Shows how little I have been able to keep track of UCFD recently (first term of law school now over!). If someone wants to close as too soon of a renom feel free, although I definitely think this should be deleted nonetheless. VegaDark (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It's likely that this category will be cited when Category:Rouge admins goes to DRV (and it will). It should have been listified the first time. Horologium (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll withdraw for now. VegaDark (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who administer LPMuds

Category:Wikipedians who code on LPMuds

Category:Wikipedians who maintain public LPMud drivers

Category:Wikipedians who maintain public LP mudlibs

Category:Wikipedians who play LPMuds

Too specific for any additional collaboration. Should all be upmerged to parent category. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upmerge all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge all to parent category Category:Wikipedians interested in LPMuds per nom. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge all as per nom. Horologium (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Note that two of these categories are empty except for userboxen. All five categories are populated by a total of five different users (two users are in two cats each, and three in one each). Horologium (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upmerge all except Category:Wikipedians who play LPMuds (delete that one). The connection between merely playing LPMuds and having an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject is too weak, I think. I play or played chess, various card games, and so on, but I have no encyclopedically-relevant interest in any of them. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Amusingly enough, that's one of the empties. :) Horologium (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have expected it to be the most populated, as it requires the least technical expertise ir knowledge. Oh, well... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not useful for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete—Most of us in the US have Mayflower ancestors (as well as several of us not in the US), even if we're not aware of it—just like most of us are descended from Genghis Khan and/or Charlemagne. Presumably, these people could be members of Category:Wikipedians interested in genealogy (I'm surprised this user category doesn't already exist), but an automatic move is not appropriate here. (I'm open to changing my vote if it becomes clear how this user category can be useful.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction "Most" is not accurate. It's about 1 in 7 Americans. The current text in Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality says "This is a listing of Wikipedia users by ethnicity, nationality, culture, homeland, lineage, etc." If this category is deleted, somebody should change that text to exclude lineage. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. This would make an interesting userpage notice, but a category is not warranted. Also, as noted by Ben Hocking, most people share at least a few common ancestors. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is a common sense of pride for those with this ancestry. That "most or "all" have this would be O.R., meaning that this would be distinctive. Why not delete the Irish ancestry or other ancestry categories as well, since almost every American has many different nationalities.--Bedford (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While this may be a source of pride, the category namespace is not appropriate for such expressions of pride. User categories should should exist on the basis of characteristics that have a potential to foster encyclopedic collaboration; in this case, a userbox or text userpage notice would suffice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Foster encyclopedic collaboration"? Between the Mayflower, 35 separate articles in the Category:Mayflower passengers, and anything to do with early Massachusetts history, there is plenty of for this category to do to "Foster encyclopedic collaboration".--Bedford (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case, the issue is not a lack of articles, but rather the basis for categorisation. The mere presence of articles about a subject means little if the particular factor in question does not form a likely basis for collaboration. The characteristic of mere descent that, by your own admission, includes at least 40 million people, is not such a factor. I can think of no reason to expect that descendants of Mayflower passengers intrinsically have an above-average interest in or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about the subject, independent of other factors. If you personally have an actual encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject, would you perhaps considering creating Category:Wikipedians interested in the Mayflower and placing yourself there? One concern is that the category may be too narrow in scope, but that could be judged later based on whether any other editors place themselves in the category over the course of a few months. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every argument that has been made against keeping this category can also be made against every subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. Are you proposing deleting them all? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I am not, as I see a difference. Ethnicity and nationality are fairly widely-accepted groupings, whereas "descendants of Mayflower passengers", like "descendants of Titanic passengers" or "descendants of delegates to the Second Continental Congress", are not. That is not to say that they are not subjects of some interest, but rather that they aren't recognised as unique and coherent groupings. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mayflower was an ethnically significant event - like the first Saxons migrating to England. The two examples you gave have no ethnic significance. The first event of ethnic significance is the fact that they founded the second permanent European settlement in North America. The second event of ethnic significance was the Mayflower Compact, which was one of the inspirations for the U.S. Constitution.
Also, by stating that Mayflower descendants aren't a coherent group, you are inferring that other ethnic groups are coherent. From personal experience, it's not really true. People are shaped a lot more by the world they grew up in than the one that their parents did. Walking down the street in Milwaukee, I can't tell who's German-Italian or Polish-Irish. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to defend the ethnicity/nationality categories; quite frankly, I don't think they're useful. I'm just pointing out that they're more defensible than this category. While the Mayflower voyage may be an "event of ethnic significance" – I have to say, I like the term... :) – descent from a Mayflower passenger is not an accepted and socially/politically significant basis of identity.
Also, I know that ethnic and national groups aren't coherent entities, but my point is that they are often treated as such. That's why one sees things such as ethnic or nationalist associations, movements, political parties, and so on. However, while there are German, Italian, Polish, and Irish nationalist political associations, there are no such associations (AFAIK) for Mayflower descendants. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a vanity. If you really want to foster collaboration, don't exclude other Mayflower scholars. —Scouter Sig 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom & Scoutersig; does nothing to foster cooperation here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- And deleting a Category just because one is too dense to realize its worth, or has no life other than deleting things, or views it as vanity due to being dropped on the head as a baby, fosters cooperation? More like just the opposite. Oh well, the forces of stupidity will delete this category now, but someday it will come back. No one who votes to delete this will ever get my cooperation for anything.--Bedford (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. VegaDark (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Lurker (said · done) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by media player
Category:Wikipedians who use Amarok
Category:Wikipedians who use Audacious
Category:Wikipedians who use Rhythmbox
Category:Wikipedians who use VLC
Category:Wikipedians who use Winamp

Delete all as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. These categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Merely using a particular media player implies neither an above-average interest in nor awareness of reliable sources about the subject. I know about as much about my media player as a student of inorganic chemistry might be expected to know about 14th century sub-Saharan African folklore. They also do not imply any sort of technical/specialist knowledge which might prove useful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all → Black Falcon said it all. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use GNOME
Category:Wikipedians who use Xfce
Category:Wikipedians who use Enlightenment

Delete all - as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all - each of these deal with more than a single environment. Just as using Windows implies a knowledge of more than just Windows, using GNOME, etc., implies a knowledge of more than just GNOME, etc. These are not so very different from the programming language categories. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per my and jc37's comments in other discussions regarding the incomparability of software categories to programming language categories. Using a particular desktop environment generally requires only knowledge about how to work with the chosen interface; this type of knowledge is not especially useful for encyclopedic collaboration since articles about software products should not include detailed usage instructions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Without access to those discussions, a reference to it is not helpful. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies for the ambiguity. I meant in the my and jc37's comments in the other "Wikipedians by software" discussions below this one, specificially in the sections #Category:Wikipedians who use OpenOffice.org and #Category:Wikipedians who use Joomla!. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. As a programmer myself, I can appreciate the value in "reuse". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "reuse"? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this particular context, I'm just referring to keeping the conversation from repeating itself. In general, I'm referring to the practice of programmers encapsulating their code similarly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for sticking me in an infinite loop with your reference to #Category:Wikipedians who use Joomla!. I barely escaped with my life! ;) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops ... I suppose that I should avoid dabbling in time travel as I expect that it would be much harder to extricate oneself from a time loop. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all We don't need such categories. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: Why? No offense intended, but this isn't just a vote—please tell us why you feel this way. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all per Ben Hocking.--Bedford (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC) - note - See Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#User:Bedford disruption- Lurker (said · done) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use KMail
Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Thunderbird

Delete both - as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both. When all's said and done, e-mail is e-mail. One might be interested in e-mailing a particular user, and that's why the userpage and "E-mail this user" function exist, but there's little value in a category that groups users by the e-mail client that they use. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Both When all's said and done, really, nobody cares. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Both Users should be more interested contributing instead of telling others who they are or what they are interested in! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per everything said before. Marlith ^T/C 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete both per nom. VegaDark (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use OpenOffice.org - "OpenOffice.org (OO.o or OOo) is an office suite application available for a number of different computer operating systems. It supports the OpenDocument standard for data interchange as its default file formats, as well as Microsoft Office '97-2003 formats, among many others."

Delete as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep—Just as knowledge of the Microsoft Office suite implies an ability to contribute to a significant number of articles, so does knowledge of OO.o. People who use this product are more likely to be familiar with the Open Document Format for one thing, as well as several other related issues, both technical and political. As with the desktop environment, this category is not very different from the programming language categories. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think though, that with such a limited scope of necessary knowledge (not that OO.o users are dumb, but that this category only covers OO.o and nothing else) collaboration could best be done on those few talk pages. —Scouter Sig 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The necessary knowledge of an OO.o user is no more nor no less than the necessary knowledge of a Category:User c (cf. Category:User c-1—i.e., as you say, not much). However, similar to the Category:User c (but arguably unlike the Category:User c-1), you're very likely to find people knowledgeable in a variety of topics related to the open document format (and open source in general). I would expect, on average, that the typical OO.o user would be at a "level 2" or "level 3" (in the programming language babel-lingo), with some "level 4" and "level 1" users as well. These people will have first-hand experience in many related topics that cannot be captured simply by an "interest in" category. On the other hand, I see no rationale for deletion other than what these categories are not for. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I don't think it's accurate to draw a comparison between a category for users of a software product and a category that reflects knowledge of a programming language. Most people with a computer use one or another office suite, but the skill of being able to use a particular office suite is unrelated to encyclopedic collaboration, as articles on office suites should not consist of usage instructions, such information being more appropriate in a user manual. Merely using a software product does not imply above-average interest in or awareness of reliable sources about the product. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "skill of being able to use a particular office suite" is not limited to being able to provide usage instructions (which I agree are not appropriate for an encyclopedia). Additionally, using a particular office suite on a regular basis conveys more than just skill of usage. It provides knowledge of the office suite features, typically implies a familiarity of how that office suite is treated in the news (via selective perception, which in this case is a positive) allowing one to more readily access reliable sources about topics related to that office suite, as well as the ability to more quickly identify false information in those related topics. All of these are valuable contributions to an encyclopedia. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a little far-fetched... I have no idea about any news regarding the office suite that I use, and I would expect that's true of most people (except those with an interest in computing). Though I am aware of some of the suite's features, such information is either: (a) already contained in the article because it's a basic descriptive detail, or (b) too specific to merit inclusion in the article, since articles should inform readers about the real-world significance of the product, instead of providing a detailed accounting of its features. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's far-fetched at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's likely. People who use OO.o are different from people who use MS Office (and a few other suites). Using OO.o usually implies taking an active interest in which office suite you use as it is very rarely a corporate decision, and very rarely installed by default on a particular operating system. Furthermore, OO.o has been in the news quite a bit recently (as has ODF), as most people who use it are probably aware. (Cf. GNOME Office, which I don't think has been, but I don't use, so I might have missed a few stories about it.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you guess that I use MS Office because it's the most common office suite in use or because my comments gave off a certain "vibe"? :) Although you make probably the best argument I've seen to keep this type of category – at one point, I even struck out my "delete" recommendation – I still don't think the connection between use and encyclopedic writing is there. Should someone who uses one of the less-popular search engines be expected to know more about that particular search engine? While an office suite and search engine are clearly not the same, I think the same principles of use apply to both, at least in the context of user categorisation. ... Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A category for users of a product is sometimes just that, and nothing more. For instance, right now I have an icon - bearing the Java logo - at the lower right corner of my screen offering to install OpenOffice, and I would were it not for the fact that I don't need it... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I made no such guess, but if I had it would have been for the probability reason, as I detected no such vibe. The comparison to web-browser is not unwarranted, as I also believe that people who use Firefox are more likely to be familiar with things like government web-sites that only support Internet Explorer than those who use Internet Explorer (since they're not negatively affected). That said, the office suite goes a step further as (a) it's much more likely that they're going to have to save their documents in a MS format to share with other people, (b) it takes a little more work to install OO.o than Firefox (but as you suggest, not much), and (c) it makes up a smaller market share of office suites than does Firefox. In case it's not clear, I would also support a user category for those who use Firefox for the same reasons, although I admit the reasons are not quite as strong as the reasons for OO.o. (Most web-pages work on both Firefox and IE. Documents created by OO.o cannot be opened in MS Office unless the owner of the document saves it in an MS-compatible format. There are many governmental organizations that accept files in MS format or PDF, but do not yet accept files in ODF format. That is slowly changing, however.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I am more interested in learing the contributions of a Wikipedian instead of whether he uses OpenOffice.org or not. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because something might be more valuable, it does not make something else valueless. However, if we're going to compare values, I'd say there's more value in having this category than in deleting it. I've stated what we can gain by having it. What do we gain by deleting it? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do we allow crap like this to clutter category space? Delete. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I use OpenOffice, but I would not dream of putting myself in this category, because there is no way that would help WP. --Bduke (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Ben Hocking.--Bedford (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC) - note - See Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#User:Bedford disruption- Lurker (said · done) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Joomla! - "Joomla! is a free, open source content management system for publishing content on the world wide web and intranets."

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - In many ways, Joomla! is also similar to a programming language. As the nomination itself suggests, knowledge of it is related to several other topics of interest in Wikipedia. Additionally, it has similarities to Wikipedia itself (as Wikipedia is also a content management system) as well as CVS, Subversion, and others. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedians by various kinds of databases? Probably not a good idea. See also: List of content management systems and for that matter: Database#Database development platforms. - jc37 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not? Also, Joomla! is not just any database/content management system. As a form of precedence, consider this:
"Wikipedians by various kinds of [programming language]? Probably not a good idea. See also: [ Categorical list of programming languages ] and for that matter: [ Non-English-based programming languages ]."

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that "sounds" nice when you're arguing it. The problem with that proposed comparison is that there simply is no comparison. There are a lot of articles related to programming languages. And not just the individual languages, but concepts and so on. (And that last part is an important key point.) A particular CMS (as abbreviated below) are essentially a bunch of fields that data in inputed into in some way or format. See, there's a difference between being a programmer and being a software user. And creating Wikipedian categories for every software package that a person may use, in my opinion, a really bad idea. (Compare to Wikipedians by Video game.) Show how it's useful for collaboration, don't just show that it exists. - jc37 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no wordsmith, so how does this sound: "show" how a category of users who use a particular programming language is useful for collaboration, and I'll show you how a category of users who use Joomla! is useful for collaboration. I say this not just to "volley" it back to you, but because I've already shown (IMO) how it's useful. You disagree, so I need to know where your standard of collaboration is. Does that make sense? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Unlike knowledge of programming languages, knowing how to use a particular CMS doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Can you be more specific? In what way are they different in their usefulness for contributing to an encyclopedia? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per my and jc37's comments in other discussions regarding the incomparability of software categories to programming language categories. Using a particular web content manager generally requires only knowledge about how to work with the available features and does not imply a developed ability to code in a particular programming language (if in particular cases it does, creating a category for the language is better than creating one for every software product); this type of knowledge is not especially useful for encyclopedic collaboration since articles about software products should not include detailed usage instructions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Without access to those discussions, a reference to it is not helpful. Keep in mind that a programming language does not differ substantially from a "software product". I'm arguing for the specific value of Joomla! and not for all software products. I agree that not all software products would necessarily merit a user category. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my clarification in the section #Wikipedians by desktop environment. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Ben Hocking.--Bedford (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) - note - See Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#User:Bedford disruption- Lurker (said · done) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Category:Wikipedians who BOINC can't be deleted for procedural reasons as it was not tagged for discussion. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use BOINC - "The Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) is a non-commercial middleware system for volunteer computing, originally developed to support the SETI@home project, but intended to be useful for other applications in areas as diverse as mathematics, medicine, molecular biology, climatology, and astrophysics. The intent of BOINC is to make it possible for researchers to tap into the enormous processing power of personal computers around the world."

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De;ete per myspace Marlith ^T/C 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I presume Category:Wikipedians who BOINC will be deleted as well if this goes? VegaDark (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use WhatPulse - "WhatPulse is a key counting program which monitors the number of keystrokes and mouseclicks, and more recently the distance the mouse moves, that a user makes over a period of time."

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WhatPulse is an interesting software program, but merely using it implies neither an above-average interest in nor awareness of reliable sources about the software. The specific knowledge that users of the software might possess, that non-users are unlikely to have, is not of the type (see WP:NOT#MANUAL) that could be especially useful for encyclopedic writing or collaboration. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Prime95
Category:Wikipedians who use MPrime

These are programs that calculate Mersenne prime numbers. "Over the years, Prime95 has become extremely popular among PC enthusiasts and overclockers as a stability testing utility."

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia categories are not here for people to express their favourite things. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use LabVIEW - "LabVIEW (Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench) is a platform and development environment for a visual programming language from National Instruments. The graphical language is named "G". Originally released for the Apple Macintosh in 1986, LabVIEW is commonly used for data acquisition, instrument control, and industrial automation on a variety of platforms including Microsoft Windows, various flavors of UNIX, Linux, and Mac OS."

I don't know what we should call this. The page later claims: "There is some debate as to whether LabVIEW is really a general purpose programming language (or in some cases whether it is really a programming language at all) as opposed to an application-specific development environment for measurement and automation."

If it's a programming language, then let's re-cat it. But if not, it probably should be deleted.

Waiting pending further discussion. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment what about "Wikipedians who use a visual programming language"? Later, we can add these (conceivably many) subcats. —Scouter Sig 15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (and Re-cat per nom)—no different from other programming language categories, and just as useful for collaboration. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - For now, I have no problem with recatting under Category:Wikipedians by programming language. I just wanted the "question" (?) of whether it truly was a programming language to be addressed. Note that apparently the actual language is "G". So perhaps we should discuss a rename (which can be done in a future nom, if wanted, I suppose.) - jc37 09:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Celestia - The is a 3D astronomy program. I could see who this could be used for creating visual displays for use on Wikipedia (similar to a graphics editor). If so, should this be renamed? Also, should this be directly under Wikipedians by software, or under Wikipedians by graphics editor? - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waiting pending further discussion. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Couldn't they just post on their page, "Hey, I have astronomy software, so ask me if you want screenshots for an article."? —Scouter Sig 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There should be a category for people who use certain software which can be useful for adding content to articles, with specific apps as subcats. Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: I believe this also applies to categories you have recently "voted" to delete (above). As there are new arguments involved now, it might be worthwhile to reconsider those "votes". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Lurker and usefulness in contributing to a variety of astronomical topics.. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep this one, because it can be used for collaborative purposes. Don't categorize under Category:Wikipedians by graphics editor, because it's not a graphics editor, despite its potential application as such. Microsoft Excel isn't a calculator, despite its potential application as such. Horologium (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I'm still not prefectly clear about the full uses of Celestia, but it seems to me that this could be of some collaborative value, in particular if it can be used as a graphics editor. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedian WikiSloths - Somewhat duplicative of one or more of the other Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors (also known as Wikifauna). I don't think we need a zoo full of such essays. The basics (which pre-date Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia:WikiGnome) should be enough. I'm also nominating Wikipedia:WikiSloth at MfD. - jc37 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nominator. - jc37 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll get around to !voting on this later...--WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. "Due to them [(WikiSloths)] editing based on their inclination or current interest, they can be found doing almost any kind of wiki editing." I just don't see how a category with such a broad scope can be useful for encyclopedic collaboration. Also, this category is more about personality than editing syle. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom and Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this and everything else in Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors as far as I am concerned. No legitimate purpose for specifically seeking out anybody in any of these categories that I can think of. VegaDark (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G4. This category is a substantially identical recreation of Category:Wikipedians in Alpha Phi Omega, deleted per WP:UCFD 2007 July 30. It is thus eligible for speedy deletion per criterion G4 (recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion). If recreation is thought to be desired even in light of the previous deletion discussion, please contact the closer of the 2007 July 30 discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, see previous discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: MIT to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories; preference given to non-acronym title. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per nom. –Pomte 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete not needed and not likely to foster cooperation on the project Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete partly per nom and partly because the category contains no actual users (the two members are userboxes). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Empty category, and I really don't think that we would want to have a category for every single TV show out there that editors watch/like. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and those who wish to express interests as to what they like to edit can join the Soap Opera WikiProject. Ariel♥Gold 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as empty category. (no users=empty, regardless of non-user links.) Horologium (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: U. Carlos III de Madrid to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Nominator's rationale: To avoid using an abbreviation in a category title and to match Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. –Pomte 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename (See Comment per nom. Can we have 'English language equivalent' instead ?Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think the university is generally referred to by its original name, even in English-language sources. I'm basing my statement on a few Google searches only, but all fairly consistent in their results. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Use the article name, even though it is in Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horologium (talk • contribs) 17:51, December 15, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: BYU Hawaii to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Brigham Young University Hawaii

Nominator's rationale: To avoid use of an acronym in a category title, and to match the parent category and the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. –Pomte 06:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - As I believe that nearly everyone in the discussion below is at least adequately familiar with the various entries at WP:AADD, I don't think I need to explain further. That said, please feel free to create a Wikipedia-space page. (If you do, I may even add myself : ) - jc37 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A silly user category that would be better served with a userbox. I like humor, but not useless categories. —Scouter Sig 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:TROUT. :) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SLAP all admins in the category twenty times with a sperm whale in advance, then delete per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and a demerit to the creator, who should know better than to create nonsense like this. Horologium (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment How is this any worse than the Rouge Admin category? Lurker (said · done) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that I voted to delete both. Trying hard to AGF, but this seems like a POINT creation, as it was created yesterday by a long-time editor with over 22,000 edits in en.wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One difference is that "rouge admin" is an established concept and group, even if it is not a formal or serious group; this category is more like April Fool's Day silliness... Besides, do we really want a category for every in-joke? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete POINT. –Pomte 21:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep of course, assuming this is real. No legitimate reason has been given for deletion. Friday (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The user category has no collaborative value and sets a precedent for "Wikipedian editors open to pinging"-type categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Yes it's a bit silly, but I see this as potential place for admins to indicate that they don't take themselves too seriously and are open to constructive criticism. I think that has a value and adds to the collaborative process. If there is an attempt to disrupt WP by making a WP:POINT, I guess I missed it.-- Kubigula (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The POINT part is that this category was created yesterday, after Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall was submitted for UCFD. As to it being useful, no, I don't think so. Create a userbox if the need to express the sentiment exists. There is no need for a category for it, however. Horologium (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Admins could indicate how seriously they take themselves or whether they are open to constructive criticism on their userpages via a simple notice (e.g. "If I make a mistake, let me know." or "Feel free to talk to me..."). A text notice also has the advantage of being able to provide context, something which this category notice sorely lacks. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep purely for not discussing this with the creator first. Discussion and communication are essential to the smooth running of Wikipedia. Randomly nominating stuff for deletion without telling those with an interest isn't particularly sensible. Nick (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Most CFD nominations do not involve notification of the creator (check any log at WP:CFD). Your complaint applies to the deletion process in general and seems more suited to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion process than here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Trout slapping, eh? Well, I'll try anything once. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Surely one doesn't need a category to trout slap or be trout slapped... :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - True, but one does need an easily accessible pool of willing victims. And a willing trout. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I thought WP:RFA was the "easily accessible pool of willing victims"? Also, you don't want to trout-slap too much since it's hard to wash off the smell of raw fish from your hands. ;) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Definitely. Even going to add myself! -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - harmless and funny. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh my, some wikipedians do take themselves and the project too seriously. This is the first laugh I have had since starting to wade through the sludge on my watchlist about two hours ago. Wikipedia is getting very earnest. Keep until we get to the 13th nomination for deletion per precedence and then it can go. --Bduke (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This does not seem to help the encyclopedia so perhaps it should go. However, I really do think it could have been left for a few weeks over the holiday period before being dragged here for deletion. We get less and less laughs these days here. --Bduke (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think everyone can appreciate some humour, but is this really any different from the recently-deleted Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - It's a good sign when admins are willing to allow themselves a sense of humour, and show their willingness to learn at the same time. Risker (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but do they have to do it with a category? Why isn't a userbox or a user-space list good enough? —Scouter Sig 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The majority of users I interact with do not have userboxes on their userpages; it would never occur to me that admins with a well laid out userpage should be mandated to have a userbox if they want to show they know enough not to take themselves too seriously. The category is just fine. Indeed, it should have a parallel "user" category. Most user and admin categories have no practical function. Risker (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, they do have the function of helping editors find other editors with a certain attribute (interest in a subject, membership in a WikiProject, and so on). That's where this category is problematic: there's no need to seek out a random admin that is open to trout-slapping. As for the userbox issue, they could do it via a simple typed text notice; categories shouldn't be used simply as userpage notices. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Funny? yes. Harmless? unless you're a trout. Useful in coordinating work in the project? Nope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongest possible keep and endeavor to populate with as many admins as possible. It's great for the project to show that admins are open to good-natured reproof and don't take themselves too seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endeavor to fill with as many admins as possible? Why? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the category? And the consensus is still delete.--WaltCip (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see my comment further above: "Admins could indicate how seriously they take themselves or whether they are open to constructive criticism on their userpages via a simple [text] notice" or userbox. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This can have a stabilising effect without the drawbacks of a recall clusterfuck. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:04, December 12, 2007
Note: I have created a userbox without the category: ((User:Lucasbfr/Admin open to trout slapping)), pending the result of the discussion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It might be a bit of fun, but it's hardly productive and relevant to the encyclopedia. Redrocket boy 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Cabal has instructed me to vote keep or they will re-activate the mind-control device in my head. At least they promised there will be Cake at the end. Charon X/talk 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is what Wikipedia has been lacking all these years, a trout slapping category. RMHED (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Kubigula. It's for those who don't take themselves too seriously and are open to constructive criticism. WODUP 04:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I understand the sentiment you convey, shouldn't all admins be open to constructive criticism? And, if we interpret this category as a sign of such, should that imply that admins who are not in it are not open to such criticism? It would seem that personality traits relevant to that are among the factors always considered at WP:RFA ... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely all editors should be open to constructive criticism. Otherwise, they probably won't last too long around here and should find another hobby. This category lists admins who both are open to constructive criticism (quite necessary) and who are open to a little comedy (the necessity of which is for each person to decide). No, that an admin isn't listed in the category doesn't mean that the admin isn't open to constructive criticism and that xe takes xyrself too seriously any more than that someone who isn't in Category:User en or a subcategory doesn't really speak English. WODUP 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, then, doesn't the category serve only as a userpage notice, which could be handled as well or even better via a text notice, and not a tool to aid navigation? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the category doesn't really aid in collaboration (why would one look for a random admin who's up for a trout-slapping, after all?), and it does merely inform others of the users' qualities, I still think the category should stay. We do allow experienced contributors a bit of leeway, and I think that this is a reasonable and humorous way to allow admins willing to be trout-slapped to identify themselves. Yes, ILIKEIT, but this argument could also be used for things such as Category:Rouge admins, which, while I'm not personally rouge, is a reasonable, harmless, and humorous way for experienced contributors to express, identify, and categorize themselves. WODUP 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Per WODUP. The category's not completely useless... --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I think all of us sysops deserve a trout-slapping once in a while... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mild delete - Don't see the category adding any value whatsover. Would suggest UserBox instead. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly a few administrators are using this, even though it was just introduced. There is therefore some opinion that it is useful, and more might come to consider it so. Community is built by allowing the free activity and interaction of members, not by blocking harmless behavior even if many or even most think it "useless." If something is useful to my neighbor, it's useful even if I have no need of it at all. On the other hand, perhaps I could use a wikitrout myself from time to time. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Amusing and harmless. Captain panda 00:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obvious delete - Can't we keep this to simply a userbox? No need to pollute the category space with "harmless and funny" categories. VegaDark (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Listify and then delete - There is consensus that this should be kept in "some form", but not necessarily in category form. This will also allow criteria for recall to be voluntarily listed, if wanted, sonething that obviously can't be done in a category. (Listified to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/List of administrators.) - jc37 10:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is useless and divisive. A significant number of administrators listed, or formerly listed here have had their recall requested, and the requestors have seen their pleas ignored. Would-be administrators have pledged to follow the procedures outlined here only to refuse to add themselves to the category after they have been sysoped, hoping that no one will notice. This category only serves to mislead. I don’t doubt that the majority of administrators listed here would do the right thing when asked about recall, but enough have failed to do so that listing now does more harm than good. Until a form of binding recall is implemented, this is a poor placebo. I move for the deletion of the category of these grounds. ➪HiDrNick! 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question. Might I ask you to cite examples? bibliomaniac 1 5 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. I'm off to bed, but to be quick I'll direct you to User talk:Mercury#Recall and this diff here for preliminary examples. I'll come up with some more tomorrow. ➪HiDrNick! 04:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. A category consisting of admins who are open to recall only so long as nobody wants to actually recall them is useless. Since people are unwilling to demand that those who put themselves here actually honor their promise, there's no point. -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in that category myself, and am in there in good faith. While I understand that it's a little toothless in its current form, it still serves a purpose, IMO, and I would personal honour it - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't doubt that some, and probably most people are there with the intention to actually stand for recall. What purpose does it serve, though, if some people put themselves in this category without meaning it? Categories don't work if they only truly apply to a subset of the people listed. -Amarkov moo! 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. The few rotten apples haven't spoiled the entire barrel in this case. It's still pretty representative as a category - Alison ^❤ 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The history of known recall attempts is logged at Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests. It shows that recall attempts are rare and even more rarely result in loss of tools through the process. The only such case to date is that of Crzrussian, who learned that what he did was wrong and readily received the tools again after a two month break. The process may have in Ryulong's case contributed to him modifying his behavior - but maybe not enough as we nearly had an RfAR quite recently over the same root issue last month. The process may or may not have contributed to Durova's resignation; it is impossible to tell. In at least two cases, the process has helped our administrators be better, and in the remainder of the cases it probably showed the complainant(s) that their complaint was frivolous. So it is actually a useful category that has helped Wikipedia in the past, and will do so in the future. If admins don't join the category after promising to or withdraw under controversy, that is significant information for the community to evaluate in future decisions regarding that editor. I know I will, as it affects the basic question of whether the editor is trustworthy. GRBerry 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is more of an issue of editors choosing to abide by the principle of voluntary recall rather than placement in a category... It seems to me that the indication of acceptance could be gained via a text notice, rather than self-categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - largely per GRBerry and per my response to Amarkov above - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The only thing divisive about the category is how people respond to whether an administrator agrees to recall or not, which ultimately has very, very little to do with the category itself. I don't feel that that is a particularly compelling reason for deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Recall is a misused tool. Mercury 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I will not express my opinions on the issues of voluntary administrative recall and self-placement in this category; however, quite simply, the category is not needed. Administrators who are open to recall may indicate this on their userpage via a userbox or a simple text notice. Why would anyone want to browse through a grouping of administrators open to recall (that is, after all, the purpose of categories ... to allow editors to browse through a grouping of related pages)? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflicted) Keep. So far, the opposes I see so far are more towards the process of recall than about the actual merits of the category. In this case, I would have to keep with a rationale similar to EVula's. I do, however, agree that admin recall should be made into a less messy affair. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my comment directly above yours. Though you may not find my argument convincing, it is directed toward evaluating the value of the category itself rather than the merits of the voluntary recall process. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - per the historic uselessness of the category itself, and the demonstrated insincerity of those who place themselves within it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "demonstrated insincerity of those who place themselves in it"? Way to assume good faith there. Nice to know that I'm marked as a liar. Leith p 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep So this process isn't always followed to the letter. That's not a reason to abandon it altogether. We have a neutral point of view policy, but some people still make biased edits. Is anyone talking about abandoning NPOV? Yes, AOR is voluntary and NPOV is official policy. The point is, non-conformance with a policy or process is not a reason to delete. szyslak 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Deletion of the category does not automatically equate to the abandonment of voluntary admin recall, which is something that I strongly support. Administrators can still declare that they are open to recall via other means (a userbox, a text notice, a messagebox) ... the category itself is useful only if there is value in grouping together admins who claim to be open to recall. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Well, no, but it would represent a symbolic attack on open recall. As in, "You can make yourself open to recall, but you're not allowed to facilitate that process and show your support for it by using a category". The "we don't really need it" argument could apply to almost any user category. Should we abolish all user categorization? szyslak 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - No. A lot of user categories are genuinely useful in that they help editors find other editors with a particular attribute (interest, skill, etc.). The issue here is that there's no real reason to actively seek out admins based simply on the fact that they are open to recall. Also, I don't see how it would be a "symbolic attack" on open recall ... a category tag that serves as a userpage notice could easily be replaced with an actual text notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Per Tim Smith's comments below, I see this whole thing as a way to test and develop a method for community admin recall. As such, the category furthers that goal by providing one clear way to measure the progress - how many admins have decided to participate.--Kubigula (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep If admins want to put their names here, despite the obvious potential for abuse (which we are now beginning to see), they should be able to. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. At least until there's a recall system with teeth (and please don't mention Arbcom, it's a mess). BTW, since nobody has mentioned it, Mercury has started the recall process. Leith p 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't make my mind up per Black Falcon and Raymond Arritt. I don't see the value of having this category (what purpose does it serve?), but on the other hand I don't see why we should regulate this if admins want to classify themselves thus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - This is a useless category. If an admin abuse his power, he/she must be de-sysoped. It doesn't matter whether that person is listed on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall or not. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Although the category is currently a who's who of the best admins, it does have potential uses. Epbr123 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. As can be seen in several of the archived cases, administrators tend to consider the actual requests either frivolous or unappropriate when they are confronted with a recall request. Obviously, such a recall request will always come from editors with whom the administrator has had issues and such a request should always be taken seriously (which is why there is the limit of 5/6 people requesting recall, if it really is only a minor dispute, never ever will this limit be reached). So, because several administrator who were on this list did not take it seriously themselves when confronted with a request AND because the Arbcom has more or less mentioned that they will not actively support the idea, this category serves no other purpose than showing off. Obviously, any administrator can always make a statement to this extend at his/her userpage, but this category gives the impression that we are dealing with some sort of policy. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Administrators who grossly abuse their power (which rarely happens, thankfully) are desysopped by ArbCom. However, administrators who use the tools in controversial or inappropriate ways, not amounting to gross abuse, ought to be removable by the community. I have, on many occasions, suggested the implementation of a community desysopping process or a form of compulsory recall, but this has been consistently rejected in polls etc. and is unlikely to be introduced at this time. But all admins should be encouraged to add themselves to CAT:AOR; I agree that it is somewhat toothless, but I trust most admins to be honourable enough to stand by their promises, and those who refused to honour a good-faith recall petition after promising to do so would (hopefully) quickly find their position untenable. Walton^One 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This category currently houses the only available description of the recall mechanism and past requests. Although this could be converted to the Wikipedia namespace, categories are a convenient and hassle-free way to maintain such a list. I don't see the category itself causing any harm, and although various editors have reservations with the process it describes, I don't think the deletion of a category would eliminate the concept of recall. Personally, I suspect that I'll keep the category even if it becomes a redlink, as I want a simple, unobtrusive notice of a commitment to accountability. A userbox would look cheesy and a vetted list would only add another level of bureaucracy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I agree that there are flaws with recall, but a deletion discussion is not the place to address them. The category has a use related to the running of the project. Imperfect or not, that is enough reason to keep it. NoSeptember 13:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Despite previous discussions of the inappropriateness (that motivated a previous CFD), I continue to see this spammed into RFAs (including a fourth of the current RFAs). As a noble experiment that people sometimes adhere to, its not very useful. As a bludgeon to make point at RFA, I consider it actively harmful. It's a devisive category that gets misused and poorly followed. Better to eliminate this category and invent a real policy on recall rather than this voluntary mess. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listify in userspace or just plain Delete. If it's not binding, not official, and there are binding and official ways (WP:DR and WP:RFAR), why is this necessary? We would never have a category called Category:United States presidents available for impeachment, would we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutersig (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any tool can be misused. If you don't like it, don't participate, but don't try to stop the experiment. We have only a smattering of data from it so far. Friday (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. People may make whatever commitments to recall they wish - having a category to identify those who have made such commitments is fairly unremarkable. I share the concerns of some that people have withdrawn from the category once they have suspected they may be recalled. Ultimately however people are only as good as their word - someone who broke their word in such a manner would fall considerably in my estimation. An ignored recall request leading to the subject removing themselves from the category is something that ArbCom should they come to review the matter would I hope take seriously. WjBscribe 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep. My own preference, like that of others here, is for all admins to be subject to recall: not by ArbCom, an appointed body which itself consists entirely of administrators, but by the community at large. Administrators are granted their powers by community support, and I think accountability requires that they keep them only for as long as they maintain that support. That said, direct attempts at establishing compulsory recall have a poor track record. What I hope proponents of binding recall who oppose this category will understand is that to institute a compulsory recall process, we need to build community support for one. It's not just a matter of "invent[ing] a real policy on recall"; we need to demonstrate that community-based recall is viable, and this category is a way to do that. By employing flexible conditions through which individual recalls can vary, the category gives us an idea of what works and what doesn't, helping us to fine-tune the current procedure and design a future one. The greater its membership and the longer it exists with successful abuse the exception rather than the rule, the easier it will be to take the next step and set up a more universal process. Tim Smith (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I agree that the process here is better than nothing and will, hopefully, evolve into something more. But a list would serve better than a category. —Scouter Sig 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. All admins should be open to recall for serious complaints, and less serious complaints should go to WP:RFC/ADMIN. There isn't a real need for this category. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Tim Smith's excellent reasoning.--Kubigula (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This commitment is greater than that faced by all admins. It is a statement of trust in the community. It's non-binding, and some have been questionable in the way they followed it, but better than nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the good. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I don't really care one way or the other about the process itself, but a category probably isn't needed. Can it be listified to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall (or something similar)? --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Mark as historical. I understand this is a completely voluntary category, based on the individual. As such, it's more suited to userspace as opposed to project space, which, fairly or not, lends an air of officiality to the process. The process has been abused - the most prominent example I can cite is Ryulong, who arguably only gained admin status based on a promise to be open to recall[1] [2] [3] [4]- only to remove himself from the category[5] once people actually started calling for it. [6] [7] [8] Since this is purely up to the individual administrator, they should feel free to detail processes and procedures for their recall in their own userspace, should they desire. But it shouldn't be a part of any official process like RfA, nor should any impression be given that it is an official process. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per GRBerry. As disclosure I was in the category from the start of my adminship almost til the end, and I hope this wasn't demonstrative of my inherent insincerity or my pandering to trolls or whatever else the oppose concerns are. The category has never pretended to be policy. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in the absence of an alternative, and per Tim Smith. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I gave the last two times this was proposed for deletion. However I'll try to be less strident this time. :) The process works when you let it. It's not official, not formal, but the weight of public opinion works just fine as an adherence enforcer. if the consensus is to delete it, I'm still going to be open to recall anyway though, with every intent to honor it... I'll just have to userify more stuff, I guess. By the way I really wish people would stop asking RfA candidates if they are willing to be in the category or not... I used to ask that question myself but I've come to realise that is not a good thing. It needs to stop. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Friday, Tim Smith. There is no better process in place for the community. The only divisiveness occurs when the category comes up for deletion. That the recall system has been abused by dishonest admins (which is true) is no reason to delete a category. The category page itself has done nothing wrong: it just links admins open to recall on the same page for the sake of convenience. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as the place for policy decisions (and most any decision regarding content in the Wikipedia namespace) is not a deletion discussion. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Although I think the process is fatally and fundamentally flawed, while it exists the category is an appropriate means to administer the process. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep some admins wanted to lower the requirements to desysopping. While I don't share their views, the category serves a purpose to "officialize" this process a bit. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the voluntary system should be kept. Whether it needs to be administered by category, rather than a list, is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That's exactly what this discussion is; to keep as a category or to listify, etc. It's not trying to disband the organization. —Scouter Sig 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepIt's a stupid category, but it's voluntary so who cares? If you don't like it, take yourself out of it. Nobody can do anything about it if you do, since it was voluntary in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should we keep "stupid" categories? —Scouter Sig 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete it's listed at the appropriate page; and one person's standards for recall differ from another's. Some admins may only be open to recall if Jimbo desysops them personally for all we know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait until a valid desyropping proccess is created by the community, yes recall is super broken, but I agree that there needs to be a process regarding the misuse of tools. Secret ^account 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I think all admins should be willing to step down if enough editors think they made a big enough mistake. Thus, I think this category is unnecessary. Redrocket boy 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for now, let the idea die out on it's own if that is its fate. -- Ned Scott 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete. Unfortunately, being "open to recall" is a vacuous promise. People tend to claim they're open to recall because this gives them more support at RFA, but when such a recall is actually requested, the subject tends to (1) set ludicrous standards of the amount of people required to recall, (2) blandly states that whomever requesting it does not qualify, (3) remove himself from the category, or (4) promise they'll seek RFC or RFAr which applies exactly the same to anybody not in this cat. This started as a nice idea, but in effect it's now only a political misdirection. >Radiant< 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- it's the best thing we have now even if it represents only a moral, not a binding obligation. I know that admins can just keep a user box without being categorized, but I see no problem in having a category. (Besides, I just added my name to it -- I'd hate to think I killed a category!) --A. B. ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete, or add every admin to the category. All admins should be subject to recall if they abuse the tools. - ∅ (∅), 05:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as divisive. –Pomte 06:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - easier to maintain than a list. (I said this then and signing now :-)) Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per A. B., and several others SQL ^{Query me!} 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or add every admin to the category to be recalled by the community. Miranda 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No to add every admin to the category, it is broken the category, and that's the main reason why it's being nominated for deletion. Secret ^account 22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and create Wikipedia:Requests for administrator recall instead, with a process similar to a user conduct RfC that is either binding or not binding depending on the consensus of the community. Alternatively, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator review which would provide an opportunity to establish community consensus on the conduct of an administrator without explicity requiring an outcome of -sysop. Avruch ^Talk 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If there needs to be a process about admins misusing the tools, I like Avruch's idea of creating Wikipedia:Requests for administrator recall. There will be better community consensus that way. Spellcast (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, or failing that, Create Wikipedia:Requests for administrator recall. We need an effective system of non-voluntary administrative recall to hold administrators responsible for their actions in the community. Afraid of mob rule? This is Wikipedia, it IS mob rule. Put a ribbon on mob rule and you have consensus. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete. Every administrator should be open to recall, or the whole idea of consensus is empty drivel. The shear existence of the category has lead to RfA's (at least one recent one) where the argument was, "Well if you don't like the person, you can always recall them." This herring is a bit to red for my tastes. Justin ^chat 08:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep. I agree with many of the above "keep" opinions, especially that of GRBerry. I also agree with a couple of the "delete" ideas. For example, I do agree that I'd rather see that all admins be open to recall, not just the ones in this category. But I don't think that deleting this category will help towards the achievement of that goal. I also listened carefully to the idea that a "category" isn't needed, and that admins can just list themselves individually, but I disagree with this. I think having a category is extremely wise. I know that when I was a new user, I found it very reassuring to see so many names of administrators here. Without the category, it's very difficult to tell how many people are participating. And, frankly, the way to get more people participating, is to show that it's the "cool" thing to do. And lastly, the recall category is extraordinarily important to many users, as is evidenced by how often the question comes up at RfAs. The category should clearly be kept. --El on ka 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I really am not sure about this one. I did not put myself in this category when I became an admin, because I had a sense, which I could not really explain, that this was in some way suspect. All admins should be treated the same. However, I do not think we should have a scheme that makes it easy for the community to discuss taking the tools away from an admin. I think that will lead to a lot of drama arising from proposals from users who are just objecting that an admin has done their job. The debate is looking like running to a keep, or at least a no-consensus keep. Perhaps that is best for now. --Bduke (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete - Every administrator must be prepared to resign if they lose the trust of the community, not just those listed in the category. Publishing recall criteria in advice is an invitation to bad faith gaming. Advice from an experienced administrator and recent events have convinced me this category is a recipe for drama, and a net harm to the project. As such, it should be deleted. The concept of recall should be built into adminship and cover all administrators. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: agree with Jehochman above. This should apply to all admins. It should not be voluntary.(WP:AAA is also interesting by the way). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep My arugment is similar to BlackFalcon's Delete vote. I won't go into whether the idea of admin recall is noble, flawed, pointless, etc., but I do find it enormously helpful to see how many admins--and which admins--signed up for this curious phenomenon. As long as the concept exists, I think it's vital to know which users are (ostensibly) participating in it and which users are not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per a lot of the above, the best I have found were User:Raymond arritt and User:AnonEMouse. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

Delete Per every single UCFD deletion discussion we ever had in the history of the universe. Marlith ^T/C 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Hah, Marlith took the words right out of my mouth. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As interesting as that may be, one can easily place the information on their userpage, and I really do not think that having a category of editors who play specific games, helps to improve the project. They could join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, instead, and still be categorized by interest. Ariel♥Gold 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Zing, Marlith. —Scouter Sig 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

Delete per above. –Pomte 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Alaska System to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Alaska Anchorage

Nominator's rationale: The userbox that populates this category actually expresses an affiliation with the University of Alaska Anchorage in particular. It seems to me that a category for a particular university is more useful than a category for a university system. If categories are created for other campuses, a parent category for the University of Alaska System can be recreated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support. With only 3 people, it's too soon to even think about subcategorization. –Pomte 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Harvard to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Harvard University

Nominator's rationale: To reflect the full name of the university and match the title of the main article: Harvard University. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. –Pomte 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, somehow I don't see this as useful for collaboration, if kept it should at least be renamed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. As I understand it, this is a category for users who are able to converse in the technical jargon of the non-profit organisation HL7. If so, then its scope is much too narrow; moreover, any collaborative potential is limited to one article only, and could therefore be carried out just as easily at the article's talk page. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This category name is bad, if I had stumbled across this by chance, I would have thought it was for Health Level Seven articles. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Single user in the category, and the category is ambiguous as to what it means, for those unfamiliar with it. However, it does appear that it is related to Health Level 7, as that is what it states at the top. I would think that there would be a better, perhaps broader category that would be more helpful to collaboration. Ariel♥Gold 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. The strongest argument for deletion here is the precedent to remove other humorous user cats which do not foster collaboration. I would have made this decision to delete if there was a userbox that was being used on most of the users' pages, but there is no such box. If someone creates such a box and it picks up usage, I would entertain this being relisted then. Similarly, I am not making a decision of listify, as the users in question would still be left without an indication on their userpages at this time. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - This category is not funny for non-admins. The job of an admin is to block vandals. They should not show arrogance. This type of category is simply unfit for a global encyclopedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It shows a bit of bad faith to say "I hope no admin will block me for nominating this category for deletion!!" It looks like it may be an attempt at a joke maybe? Anyhow the job of an admin isn't simply to block vandals. An admin is a volunteer editor with extra tools that they use for janitorial work, which happens to include blocking vandals. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No. I didn't made that comment in a bad faith. I made that comment for fun. That's it! I have removed that comment. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't remove bits and pieces of the comment, rather you should strike out what you wish to retract by using <s></s>. Removing part of the original comment, may alter the point, or context of any comments that have responded to it. And I thought you may have been joking, it's no big deal, you did nothing wrong by making that comment. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deltate somewhat divisive. Marlith ^T/C 05:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Relatively harmless. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Chill .. it's called "humor". AmiDaniel (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:ROUGE. Seriously, it's ((humor)) leave it be. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - useful for tracking all the rouge admins so I'll know to avoid them. See also Category:Eguor admins - Alison ^❤ 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (hint, it's humorous ;) )Reply[reply]
Delete nn Linkboyz (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment This category is offensive to non-admins like me. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Why?? - Alison ^❤ 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - An admin should not be arrogant. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:10, 10 December
      - Indeed, but where's the arrogance? All I see is a bunch of admins poking fun at themselves and each other. What harm? - Alison ^❤ 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Well Alison, when I was new, I didn't contacted "Rouge admins" because I thought they were really "rouge". I think this type of category will scare many new users. I am not from the English speaking parts of the World. Wikipedia is becoming popular in many non-English speaking parts of the World. This type of category may be offensive to people from other culture. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Wait, how can non-English speakers be offended if they can't read the category? EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It's humorous and isn't meant to be taken seriously..--Sandahl 06:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This discussion is almost sillier than the category. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - It's bit of humor. We are allowed to have some fun here. Even admins. Jeffpw (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, humorous, harmless. Ral315 (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Do we allow other user categories to be funny? The UCFD is filled with attempts at humor that have been deleted. I say make a list and link to that. Wikipedia is not myspace, and we don't need a user category like this. —Scouter Sig 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Joo should be teh blockedz for nominating dis cat!!111 (non-admin here) In all seriousness, keep per humour/WP:COMMUNITY. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but WP:COMMUNITY is an essay, WP:NOT is policy. —Scouter Sig 06:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does it violate WP:NOT? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As a non-admin who does think this is funny, I resent the nominee's assertion that This category is not funny for non-admins. And I know enough non-admin editors to know that the nominee's attitude is not the norm. Honestly, this smacks of WP:POINT, a vendetta against admin arrogance. - BillCJ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:POINT well taken, BillCJ, especially since the nominator canvassed 50 admins immediately after putting this up for deletion. Jeffpw (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made that mistake because I didn't know about the canvassing policy. User:Spebi has reverted my messages. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep nat.utoronto 06:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - It is indeed funny. I have been considering the possibility of putting myself in the category if an when I make and pass an RfA. ((Humor)) me, please. ;) Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closing admin - I support the decision the rouge admin who closes this the way they want it while ignoring all our comments. NoSeptember 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I second this motion! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment of course it is a joke, but I am not sure a newcomer here would realise that. DGG (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If everyone understood every joke, none of them (neither jokes nor everyones) would be funny. Not saying that this category is, but the deletion discussion is kind of amusing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...but it's tagged with ((humor))... I understand the importance of thinking what things look like to newcomers (and not biting them and all that jazz), but I draw the line at protecting people who can't read from what's frankly their own fault. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a clever publicity stunt to advance The Cause. Nice job.. Deiz talk 10:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Mostly cos it's harmless, but also cos' you made me have to figure out when my talk page hadn't changed, til I realised spamming this deletion thread had been reverted. Esteffect (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~. This is another category which can be expressed through a userbox (or a bit of text on the userpage). Can anyone give me an example to show the utility of the category? I'm all for keeping the essay and the userbox, but the category itself has no use. Horologium (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change to Listify as per Black Falcon's suggestion. Horologium (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I am a little surprise that so many people have voted 'Keep'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. This is not a place for humor or fun. Do we have categories like Category:Non-admin Wikipedians who don't like admins or Category:Wikipedians who hate admins? No. Similarly we don't need this category. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"This is not a place for humor or fun." Not with you on the boat. I appreciate you're a fairly new editor, it may well be that you haven't quite figured out the difference between mainspace (the articles) and projectspace (the community). If Wikipedia was the no-fun zone that you envisage, it would have far fewer and far less interesting people building it. Deiz talk 14:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the consensus pretty much stands as "keep" in any case; if you're trying to get a popular title or category such as Wikipedia:Rouge admins deleted, you'll need a hell of a lot more reason than policy; see WP:PPP.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and comment that someone who seriously believes that Wikipedia "is not a place for humor or fun" has missed an important feature of volunteer organizations ➥the Epopt (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as it's all in good fun, and has the templates at the top of the project space pages to prove it. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, possible rename. I thought it was funny before I became an admin, I still think it's funny now. (And if we can't poke any fun at ourselves, 90% of the userboxes need to go, too.) However, I can make a strong case for renaming it [[Category:Wikipedians who are rouge admins]].--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, goshdarnit, and to think I almost rouged this whole discussion. (For the humor-challenged, that was a joke. I wouldn't really delete this discussion.) More seriously, I think a lot of us who have that category are saying "I reserve the right to use my own judgement, discretion, and common sense, even when it differs with that of the majority." Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I keep seeing the repeated assertion that the category should be kept as humor. Pardon me for being blunt, but why is having a category humorous? Remember, UCFD doesn't address the userbox, or the essay, only the user category. What purpose does this category serve? I think that Wikipedia:Rouge admin is hilarious; I think the userbox is whimsical. But user categories are supposed to serve a function other than simple self-identity, and this one fails that test. Many "Humorous" user cats have been deleted (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Nonsense.2Fjoke categories) and similarly, many userspace project categories have been removed as well (see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by userspace project). I don't see how this differs much, except that it is, by its construction, limited to administrators only, and is not a clearly necessary category, such as Category:Administrators. Horologium (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more, while I am at it: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who believe TINC, which is an even closer parallel, as it was linked to an essay and was created for a userbox based on that essay. (TINC=There Is No Cabal, for those who don't follow the links.) Horologium (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I am neutral on this. On one hand, i take all concerns mentioned above seriously (except for the arrogance part of it). On the other hand, all admins (be them 'rouge' or not) are subject to the same rules which apply to all. If an admin abuses h/er powers s/he would simply be desysopped. For this reason i've made sure my name appears also at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listify to Wikipedia:Rouge admin or some other project-space page, creating a section similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography#Members. Aside from the issues raised by Horologium, I just don't see how the category adds to the humour value of WP:ROUGE. Also, considering that the concept of "rouge admin" was born from the propoensity of some editors to confuse "rouge" and "rogue", I think it's plausible that the category could lead to real confusion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listify per Black Falcon. This also allows it to be moved cleanly to user space if that is preferred. The category does not contribute to collaboration, and it doesn't even really contribute to humor, as the user box and WP:ROUGE do all of the heavy lifting there. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as a useful networking tool, and as allowing some admins not to take themselves too seriously. Of course, I'm too serious and go along with the majority, so perhaps I should join this category. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete; listify at will. Horologium gives a good explanation. –Pomte 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete but do not depopulate; this should be a rouge link not a blue link when used. More seriously - who cares? GRBerry 21:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I am not an administrator and I find the concept of rouge admins, as well as the category, to be hilarious. The argument fails. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep though I think it would be deliciously ironic if someone went rouge and deleted the category anyway. Really, let's please not lose all sense of humor in the community. Cowman109^Talk 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is stretching it more than necessary, but the category also lists potential people who you should turn to if you want something potentially controversial done and who are willing to deal with the consequences. Cowman109^Talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It's marked with a humor tag. No need for editors to be automatons. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Funny? maybe. Harmless? basically. Useful to coordinating work on this project? absolutely not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per SCREW decree 802.11b: all hotties are notable. You can imagine this is a vote, if you would like, but since the Rouge cabal will prevent you from having your say, it's rather quite useless. ;) Joking aside, the whole rouge admin bit serves as perhaps the most convincing reminder that we're not a giant, soul-less cabal of elitists bent on information suppression, because of one key element: humor. If any government were to say to its citizens, in plain, old, boring, official terms, "We are not here to oppress you— we're here to help, so trust us," it would be taken by its people with a grain of salt. If, on the other hand, that same government actively makes fun of itself, and, through humor, shows that it's more than willing to poke fun at the very criticisms with which it's attacked, the net result (at least, in my opinion) carries far more weight and makes a far greater impact positive impact on its citizens than the average non-humorous equivalent. Sure, we're not a government, but for those on the outside looking in (with no knowledge of that fact), it might be easier to dispel the paranoia of some newbies by showing them that we're just like them. *shrug* --slakr^\ talk / 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I've never really found it funny, but I'm not seeing anything harmful here. I see it the same way I see signature pages in user space; I hate them, but they've been deemed acceptable as a way to create a community atmosphere and collegiality. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Harmless, yes. Useful, no. --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most (read: more than just those nominated here) user categories are useless...do you want them deleted? — Dihydrogen Monoxide

Yes, (not nearly most, but) that's the point of this page. –Pomte 01:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most user categories are not useless (categories for location, interest, skill, profession, and so on); if they are useless, then they should be deleted. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Does not promote collaboration in building the encyclopedia; that is the standard to which other user categories are being held to and just because this one involves sysops doesn't mean it should be above that running consensus. Have fun with the userbox, but what purpose can the category possibly serve? Is there any possible reason I may need to find a rouge admin, or that they may need to find each other to collaborate on some aspect of the project? I'm all for humor, but since "hey it's funny" hasn't been a valid argument in the past here at UCFD, it shouldn't be now just because of whom the category involves, we don't want a situation where some editors are "more equal than the others" to quote Orwell. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletebecause I don't get it.We were building an encyclopedia.What happened?¤~IslaamMaged126 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep per Slakr's most excellent analysis. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Ugly administrators per WP:SOMEPOLICY. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So Keep, hilarious is a valid rationale when it's made by an administrator? Usually UCFD destroys categories without prejudice when their purpose is humor. I'm actually fairly disappointed by the incredible level of hypocrisy I'm seeing here. I would be fine keeping this category if non-administrators were allowed to create fun user categories without them being deleted, but that's so very far away from the reality of UCFD that I don't know how an honest closing admin could find any of the keep rationales valid. --JayHenry (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Indeed. As an inclusionist, I cannot pretend that I will be disappointed if this user category is kept (despite the fact that I "voted" to delete/listify for sake of consistency). I will not be disappointed if this user category is deleted, either, as it will make the inevitable DRV quite interesting. It will most definitely get added to the precedent page (possibly with the trout one). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, you need not worry. It will be going to DRV either way, because I intend to take it there when it is kept (as I suspect will happen). Only two people voting "keep" have actually addressed the category itself, and one of them is a WP:ITSFUNNY and the other is WP:USEFUL. I hate citing essays, but sometimes it's necessary. Horologium (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than take it to DRV perhaps we could involve the admins here in changing the UCFD guidelines to stop deleting humorous and harmless categories? Now that they've seen how annoying it is, perhaps they'll be more sympathetic to the disheartening frustration that non-admins feel when they try to have a little fun and get taken to UCFD or MFD. I agree we're not automatons. So maybe we should move forward constructively and change the UCFD guidelines to reflect the consensus of administrators that has developed here? --JayHenry (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually stated something similar at User talk:Horologium (although I'm not certain that Horologium's DRV would not be useful). I agree with your sentiment, fwiw. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) The problem is that virtually every admin who participated in this thread has never been to UCFD in the six months I've been active in here, and I seriously doubt that many of them will return. The fact that After Midnight has been spending ALL DAY LONG closing the backlog of overdue discussions when any of the two dozen admins who participated in this thread could have done the same is a pretty sad commentary. Only four admins participate in this portion of the project with any regularity—Vega Dark (who just returned after a long hiatus), jc37, Black Falcon, and After Midnight. Jc37 and Black Falcon usually participate in the discussions, so they can't close a discussion in which they have participated, which leaves poor AM to close everything. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before commenting on the "disheartening frustration" of having nonsensical categories deleted or suggesting that those who support their deletion are or treat people as "automatons", please have a look here to get an idea of the type of category that frequently pops up. While some are a little funny, all are utterly without value. That's not even a complete list, as categories like Category:Userpages That Are Full Of LOL are generally speedy deleted without discussion.

Does the discussion above reveal a double-standard? Somewhat. But that doesn't mean we should seek to change WP:NOT based on a purely numerical "consensus" of ILIKEIT votes. A consensus for "keep" is not possible when the bulk of comments in favour of retention do not address the page being considered for deletion (the category, not Wikipedia:Rouge admin). That said, if this closes as "keep" or "no consensus", I'm not sure how useful a DRV would be, from a purely practical standpoint. Although... I'm tempted to add myself to the category, close the discussion as "no result", delete the category per WP:IAR, protect it against recreation, and then withdraw myself from the category, returning to less rouge-ish ways. :) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Let's limit jokes to userboxes, please. VegaDark (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Space Sciences[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Space Sciences to Category:Wikipedians interested in space science

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation and match Space science. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename "Space Science" is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized. Ariel♥Gold 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Environmental Sciences[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in Environmental Sciences to Category:Wikipedians interested in environmental science

Nominator's rationale: To fix capitalisation and match Environmental science. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Environmental science is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized in the title. Ariel♥Gold 00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per the comments here and my closing rationale at the prior discussion. No prejudice against creation of new, separate, unambiguous categories. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public domain license to Category:Wikipedians who multilicense some or all contributions into the public domain or similar

Nominator's rationale: The current name doesn't indicate that this is a user category; it isn't really any different from Category:Public domain, except for the description at the top. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the "some or all" portion could be dropped without losing clarity: Category:Wikipedians who multilicense contributions into the public domain. Still, I favour deletion, for reasons laid out in the September 2007 discussion. Namely:

I can understand an interest in the contributions (particularly images) of a specific user, but I don't see how this category is useful. ... The primary utility of any category lies in assisting navigation, but I can't think of a reason someone might want or need to browse through this type of category. Since deleting the category would still leave the templates on individual editors' userpages, I don't see that it would significantly interfere with release of content under a particular license. Even if a lot of people use only the category and none of the more detailed templates, the vagueness of this category prevents us from knowing exactly what part of their contributions they license into the public domain.

If no consensus to delete, then rename for the reason highlighted by the nominator (clarity of the title). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that discussion. Agree with your naming suggestion; neutral with regard to deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Delete - per my comments at the September 2007 discussion. (To the closer: please take that discussion in consideration when closing this.) - jc37 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who multilicense contributions into the public domain. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename Favoring deletion implies that there's no worth in the categorization of users by licensing, Wikipedia:Multi-licensing demonstrates that this is a flawed basis. User licensing categories may facilitate the process of creating derivative content under a less restrictive license that the GFDL; more & freer content = Good Thing. Also, this category should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who release all contributions into the public domain and Category:Public domain minor edit license should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who release all contributions marked as minor edits into the public domain. These titles are wordy but specific and, most of all, useful. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (& note that images have a separate categorization scheme) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a moment and read the previous discussion. The main problem with this category is that it doesn't even have specific inclusion criteria. It's populated by (at least) three templates, which are actually different licenses. This should be deleted, and three separate specific categories "could" be created to replace this one, if wanted or warranted. But this is inaccurate (even under the rename suggestions), and is just a bad category. - jc37 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three templates currently link to this category[9]: (there are several others, as outlined at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing, but the relevant text is the same)
((Public domain release)), which states "I agree to release my text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain"

((User pd)), "Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain"

((User Publicdomain)), "I, the author, hereby agree to waive all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in all content contributed by me, the user, and immediately place any and all contributions by me into the public domain, unless otherwise noted. I grant anyone the right to use my work for any purpose, without any conditions, to be changed or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without any attribution or notice to the creator."

Except for the bit about image contributions, these releases are functionally equal. Images are handled by a different categorization scheme, so any potential user would still have to track down the creator of any image and check to see if they use ((public domain release)). Public domain release may or may not be possible, so the third template is the only one to explicitly allow unlimited use/modification. However, if you work under the theory that any contributor may legally release ip into the public domain, then even the terse text of ((User pd)) is satisfactory. Further, if "public domain" is not explicitly mentioned, the release of rights becomes classified as Category:Free use license, so ((User Publicdomain)) would take advantage of both categories. Note also that a new category was created to deal with minor edits, as in ((MultiLicenseMinorPD)). I'm all for streamlining or revamping the weave of licensing agreements, but I don't think that deletion is a necessary step at this point. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename this is a user category, and should be so titled. GRBerry 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to something more descriptive, but no deletion. This would be useful for anyone wishing to hunt down public domain content, although yes, it wouldn't be as simple as just grabbing every name in this category. --- RockMFR 05:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians who multilicense contributions into the public domain. Comment - agree with jc37 that rationalization is warranted. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1st choice) or Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (2nd choice). The latter title stays true to the text of the userbox and only adds the needed definite articles. The former title expands the scope of the category to include any subject related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; however, as the state ceased to exist in 1795, renaming it to the more inclusive title will not necessitate its removal from Category:Wikipedians interested in European history. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support renaming to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for brevity. With a topic like Grand Duchy of Lithuania, I think being interested in its history is essentially the same as being interested in the state itself. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per nom, can assist cooperation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I'd rather stay closer to the intent in this case. - jc37 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. "The history of" limits the scope of the category to be too narrow for collaboration IMO. VegaDark (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Wikipedians by mental and physiological condition and subcats. This category for users who are prone to depression does not foster collaboration, especially since Wikipedia is not and is not suited to be a depression assistance website. As a userpage notice, a userbox or text notice is more appropriate than a category. Also, if the information expressed is true, then this category could be a tool for trolls, assisting them in selectively targeting those editors who are most easily provoked or discouraged. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps move to Wikipedians who have depression. Could help with depression related articles. Marlith ^T/C 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That category was deleted; also, how would being prone to depression imply any ability to help with depression-related articles? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sandahl 06:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It is reasonable for people to want mutual support, and I think have the right to it, even in WP. This is a community. The October decision was wrong, and deleting this would continue the sad and --yes--depressing trend..DGG (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Wikipedia has a community, to be sure, but it is not suited to providing psychological support; in fact, I'd say it's downright dangerous to attempt to take on that role: not every WP editor is well-intentioned, polite, helpful, and informed; indeed, some gain satisfaction from actively harassing others (at least until they're blocked). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Somewhat useless usercat - Alison ^❤ 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Black Falcon said it all. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I can sympathize, and in a way, I do understand the desire for the category, and agree with DGG with regards to the importance of community. But I have to also agree with Black Falcon, that this could be seen as problematic. Wikipedia is not a place to seek any sort of medical advice, or support for emotional issues. To classify users by those things, could lead readers to believe there is a support system in place. I think a better category would be for the editors to join the WikiProject Psychology, and use that category to identify themselves. However, if kept, I think a more appropriate name could be found, as "easily depressed" is a subjective term to most readers, and could apply to almost anyone; not everyone has perfectly happy days. If the intent was to classify editors by depressive disorder, medically speaking, I think rewording would be in order. Ariel♥Gold 07:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not promote cooperation or coordination on the project and little different than all the sexuality and condition cats that we already deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon and Carlossuarez46 Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Delete Per every single UCFD deletion discussion we ever had in the history of the universe. Marlith ^T/C 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per precedents Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom / precedents. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians in the Civil Air Patrol. This category merely expresses an off-wiki organisational affiliation that provides no information about interest, knowledge or skills. It is, in essence, a "member of Branch X of the military of Country Y"-type user category, and I can think of no reason to encourage the proliferation of thousands of such categories for every subunit of every military service branch of every country. I considered a merge to Category:Wikipedian military people, but members of the Australian Army Cadets are between the ages of 12 and 18, which brings us to another issue: the wisdom of having a category whose members are, by definition, legal minors (see 1 and 2 for context). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom insofar as off-wiki organizational affiliations are immaterial, reserve judgment on whether minors-only cats are a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sure whether category of 'legal minors' is an issue here - If the cat specifically serves only those class of people, then rename would be in order. Also need to keep in mind there are other countries too where 'legal minors' take part in the army (in some way / name or the other). Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who listen to Noise to Category:Wikipedians who listen to noise music - jc37 00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who listen to Noise to Category:Wikipedians who listen to noise music

Nominator's rationale: "Wikipedians who listen to noise" is ambiguous; the category should clearly indicate that it is a category for listeners of the noise music genre; also "noise" shouldn't be capitalised in this instance. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category does not foster collaboration. User categories are not needed to express miscellaneous sentiments, as userboxes and text notices are more than adequate to convey the sentiment.

Delete as nom and per precedent (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is certainly pertinent to the encyclopedia if anything is. So were a few of the others. But then I have an unpopular view--that any UC that is not harmful is acceptable--I respect user diversity in self-expression and think it should be encouraged. DGG (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I don't contest that it's pertinent to the encyclopedia, but such pertinence does not automatically imply usefulness. Also, I think the argument about "respect[ing] user diversity in self-exression" is grossly misplaced. I do not seek to discourage expression or diversity, but there's a distinction between expressing diversity and forming factions on the basis of differences. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, though since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, perhaps we should block all these people first on grounds of stupidity ;). —Scouter Sig 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom & per Scouter, instead of blocking, just give them all the fungi not identified here as poisonous and see if they really trust WP as a reliable source by chowing down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - if you don't, I am not going to trust Wikipedia anymore! ;-) Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who believe in God to Category:Theist Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The categories are redundant; the subcategories should not be merged, but should simply be removed from this category as they already appear in Category:Wikipedians by religion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't care one way or the other because most user categories are pointless anyway, but they aren't redundant. People who believe in a higher power and call that higher power God are not the only theists out there. Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc, believe in God. Hindus, Buddhists, some/most Wiccans, adherents to Native American spirituality, etc, would describe themselves as "theists" and would say they believe in one or more gods, but would not say that they believe in God. (Yes, I'm overgeneralizing, but you get the point.) --B (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right; thanks for noticing this. I had approached the issue from the perspective of the usefulness of categories and had thus overlooked this technical distinction ("god", "gods", or "deity" versus "God"). Given that the concept of "God" is one that is present in many religions but is not identical across religions, I think "belief in God" is not a good basis on which to categorise. Aside from the excessively broad scope, a grouping of users on this basis does not aid encyclopedic collaboration (I realise that you haven't argued that it does ... I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm striking the suggestion to merge in favour of deletion, per the discussion above. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't foster cooperation/collaboration - in fact it is more likely to discourage it. An atheist could well attribute illogic to those believing in a deity which the atheist is certain doesn't exist, similarly an ardent believer could well attribute failure of the senses to those who cannot believe in what they feel is manifestly certain and perceivable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Carlos. --Kbdank71 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Else the 'Spirit' of Wikipedia will haunt you forever :-) Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is my question, if a Muslim can say they believe in Allah, then why can't we say that we believe in God for Christians or Jews?! Am I wrong here!? Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedian rugby football fans and all subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom / precedents. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category serves as little more than a (vanity) userpage notice; for these purposes, any one of the five userboxes is adequate. Merely appearing on a game show does not endow an individual with the ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it; in any case, the potential for such collaboration is limited to one article only, and so could just as well take place on the article's talk page.

Delete as nom, and per precedent against "Wikipedians by game show" categories (e.g. 1, 2, 3). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per every single UCFD deletion discussion we ever had in the history of the universe. Marlith ^T/C 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per ample precedent against "Wikipedians by wish/desire" categories; such categories have no collaborative value. The userbox is more than adequate to express the sentiment. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't have categories that are illiterate. (there/their) - Crockspot (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Per every single UCFD deletion discussion we ever had in the history of the universe. Marlith ^T/C 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently Vista doesn't come with a spell checker. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.
Delete I agree that the title is grammatically incorrect, and realize that one could simply move it to the correct title, but I do believe that this category would provide no purpose towards building the encyclopedia. Ariel♥Gold 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read the works of Oscar Wilde to Category:Wikipedians who read Oscar Wilde

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete are we talking present or past tense here? So what if you once read them; so what if you read them on and off. Doesn't foster cooperation or collaboration. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. "Read" in this case is likely to be present tense. Category:Wikipedians interested in books states Subcategories of this category should be named as Wikipedians who read (X). Horologium (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in the works of Oscar Wilde or something similar. As Carlossuarez46 correctly points out, the current naming convention inadequately conveys the collaborative use these categories are intended for. As is, someone could have read a paragraph out of one of his books once and that would be enough to qualify to be in this category. I do think that these types of categories should be nominated as a group, however, so rename per nom if no consensus for my rename. VegaDark (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for users of PlayStation Network, which is a "free online service provided by" Sony, inclusive of features such as a user account, matchmaking, friend list, voice/video chat, messaging, and so on. As such, its potential to foster encyclopedic collaborative is extremely limited or nonexistent and the category serves as little more than a userpage notice.

Delete as nom, per precedents against categories of Wikipedians by gaming website and by social networking website. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom / precedents. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom and ample precedent. Horologium (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Salk to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the institute and of the main article: Salk Institute for Biological Studies. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clare, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Clare College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Girton, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Girton College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gonville and Caius, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Pembroke, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Pembroke College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Peterhouse, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Peterhouse, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Sidney Sussex, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St Catherine's, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St Catharine's College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St John's, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St John's College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St John's College, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St John's College, Cambridge
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity, University of Cambridge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity College, Cambridge

Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the main article for each college. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Horologium (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: UEL to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of East London

Nominator's rationale: When possible, category titles should not use acronyms. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom. Another reason is that there are very many King Edward schools and it really is not clear. --Bduke (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Van Mildert, University of Durham to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Van Mildert College

Nominator's rationale: To add the missing space after "mater:" and match the title of the main article (Van Mildert College). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete as per nom. Despite the name, this is a secondary school, not a college or university. Horologium (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete as per nom, and ample precedent. Horologium (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete as per nom and ample precedent. Horologium (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Wikipedians who are Intellipedians to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Intellipedia - jc37 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who are Intellipedians to Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Intellipedia

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by website. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:National Geographic Society Members - Single user category. And per precedent - jc37 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - every Wikipedian subscriber to a certain magazine is a member of this category. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete lest we have categories such as member-of-some-neighborhood-discount-store and so on - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bangor University. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Wales, Bangor to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bangor University

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Bangor University ~~Aberystwyth University~~. Unlike the UMIST discussion below, the independent existence of this university did not end; it just changed its name. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I assume you mean Bangor University. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, yes. I copy-pasted the text from the nomination immediately below this one, and forgot to change that detail. It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing it, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename as nominated, to match title of main article Bangor University. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Aberystwyth University. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Aberystwyth University

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Aberystwyth University. Unlike the UMIST discussion below, the independent existence of this university did not end; it just changed its name. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom, to match title and correct current name of institution. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: ex-UMIST to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

Nominator's rationale: Acronyms should be avoided in category titles. This category is intended to express an affiliation with an institution that no longer exists; however, given the length of time for which it existed, I don't think that the category ought to be deleted for that reason alone. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Black Falcon. UMIST has a long and proud history. --Bduke (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as nominated, to put correct (non-acronym) name of institution in category title. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support rename per nom; rationale justified - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per very ample precedent. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support rename per precedents - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom and ample precedents. Horologium (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St Hugh's, University of Oxford to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St Hugh's College, Oxford

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: St Hugh's College, Oxford. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per nom; rationale justified - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: School of the Institute of Cancer Research, University of London to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Institute of Cancer Research

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Institute of Cancer Research. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment / Neutral - name being too generic, may be it (article title) should be 'Institute of Cancer Research, University of London' to avoid need for disambiguation down the line. - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The category appears as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of London. I don't know how much that addresses your concerns, but it might be useful to know. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom; rationale justified - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom and ample precedent. Horologium (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete → per precedents. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom; rationale justified - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom and ample precedents. Horologium (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Göteborg University[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Göteborg University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Göteborg University

Speedy rename to add the missing space after "alma mater:". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Far Eastern University[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater:Far Eastern University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Far Eastern University

Speedy rename to add the missing space after "alma mater:". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: EPFL to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename (Qualified) - can it be in English though ? - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The English equivalent would be Federal Polytechnic Institute, Lausanne, but the institution is not known by that name. Even among English-language sources, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne is far more common. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Rename as per nom. Use École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, as per the article name. Horologium (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Complutense University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Complutense University of Madrid

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: Complutense University of Madrid. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of KAIST to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and to match the title of the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of Korea University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Korea University

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians of Seoul National University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Seoul National University

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Stellenbosch to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Stellenbosch University

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (Stellenbosch University) and the university website. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as per nom. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per precedents - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom and ample precedent. Horologium (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Technion - Israel Institute of Technology. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians associated with the Technion to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Technion - Israel Institute of Technology

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater, and to match the title of the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - The institute seems to offer, in addition to usual programs, some special programs for physically challenged, which imho would be few and far between - not every college / school would; Having the subject category might be of use in this background. So, would suggest retain category though precedents are against doing so. But then if it has to go, so be it. (Oh! God, can't make up my mind).

I made the above comment Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Danforth Collegiate and Technical Institute is not an actual college, but a secondary school. Also, though I don't know much about Danforth's special programs for students with disabilities, most schools in North America have such programs. While its possible that Danforth's programs are more intensive, well-known, or developed, the article doesn't really indicate that. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom. I cannot speak for Canada, but in the United States special-needs programs are not unusual. Almost all schools have programs for special-needs students. Horologium (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Don Bosco Technical College. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Don Bosco to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Don Bosco Technical College

Nominator's rationale: Per convention, to match the title of the main article: Don Bosco Technical College. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename also because there are dozens of Don Bosco high schools, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Also see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: De La Salle University-Manila. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: De La Salle University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: De La Salle University-Manila

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (De La Salle University-Manila) and avoid confusion with De La Salle-Canlubang and De La Salle University-Dasmariñas. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: AMA Computer University. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ama computer college to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: AMA Computer University

Nominator's rationale: To correct the name of the university, to match AMA Computer University. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Boğaziçi University (see Boğaziçi University. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bogazici Alumni to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Boğaziçi University (see Boğaziçi University)

Nominator's rationale: To clarify that this is a user category, and per convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename for consistency with many parallel user categories.
(Greetings and best wishes to any Boğaziçi alumni who may read this.)
Kestenbaum (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Orkut account - Per Orkut: "Orkut is an Internet social network service run by Google and named after its creator, Google employee Orkut Büyükkökten. It claims to be designed to help users meet new friends and maintain existing relationships. Similar to Facebook, Friendster and MySpace, Orkut goes a step further by permitting the creation of easy-to-set-up simple forums (called "communities") of users." - Delete per previous precedent. - jc37 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete → per precedent Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per very ample precedent. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom / precedents. Had got created just a day or two ago I guess - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. We should not maintain directories of members of other websites unless they are relevant to encyclopedic collaboration on Wikipedia; a category for members of a social networking service lacks such relevance. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Tecnologica de Mexico[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Tecnologica de Mexico to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Tecnológica de México

Speedy rename to match the title of the main article: Universidad Tecnológica de México. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity College Dublin[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity College Dublin to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity College, Dublin

Speedy rename to match the title of the main article: Trinity College, Dublin. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

concur. Also the proper name of the institution. --Paularblaster 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: IPN to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: National Polytechnic Institute or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Instituto Politécnico Nacional

Nominator's rationale: To match the English-language title of the main article (National Polytechnic Institute) or the full Spanish-language name of the institute (Instituto Politécnico Nacional). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to English equivalent per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: National Autonomous University of Mexico or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Nominator's rationale: To match the English-language title of the main article (National Autonomous University of Mexico) or the correct Spanish-language name of the university (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to English equivalent per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: ITESM to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education

Nominator's rationale: Category titles should avoid using acronyms, and to match the title of the main article. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Università degli Studi di Padova to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Padua

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: University of Padua. I generally don't nominate "alma mater" user categories for renaming for the mere fact that they use the original-language name of the university, but I think it's necessary in this case. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename → I agree with the nominator that category's names should match those of the article they came from. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to English equivalent per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - No prejudice against recreation, if approved, and also no prejudice against re-nomination here, if deemed appropriate after that. - jc37 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This category for users who use statistics generated by a particular bot does not foster collaboration (incidentally, the bot hasn't been approved yet; see User:CAGBot). Delete per ample precedent against "Wikipedians by personal project"-type categories (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral: Since the bot hasn't been approved yet, it's premature, but I could see this category being useful if the bot is useful. If someone is wondering how the stats from the bot might be used, this category could be helpful in that regards. Assuming (apropos of nothing) the bot is helpful for collaboration, I think this category would be helpful for collaboration as well. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information about the type of statistics that a bot generates and how they could be used is generally required and provided in the bot request for approval, which should be linked from the bot's userpage. There's also the option of asking the bot operator, which seems more efficient/effective than trying to find a category for people who make use of the bot's functions. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes users find ways of using stats that the creators didn't intend… Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment, we don't know what this bot will do, as there is not BRFA. I think that such a category is premature, and that we should delete it. When and if the bot will be approved, the user can re-create the category. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mild retain - may be it will help in early users of the bot bonding together hopefully to improve the bot. - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While users can certainly provide feedback to a bot operator, they rarely can make actual changes to the bot's code. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. See Special:Whatlinkshere/User:CAGBot. A BRFA has not been filed yet. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The last thing we need is a grouping of easily-angered people. If the sentiment expressed is true and not a joke, this category is the perfect tool for trolls seeking to provoke people. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as overinclusive. That would apply to every Wikipedian who has contributed for more than a few weeks. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 07:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - THIS CATEGORY OUTRAGES ME! I AM NOT EASILY ANGERED!!--WaltCip (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Although I may want to specially avoid anyone I see using this category. —Scouter Sig 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can't see any possible collaboration use here. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another pet category; they were deleted under Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Wikipedians by pet. This one should be deleted, too: The sentiment can be conveyed by the userbox, without the category. Horologium (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as nom. Horologium (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. The category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and really serves only as a userpage notice; a text notice or a userbox is more than adequate for that purpose. Also see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Boxer owners. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I could see "Wikipedians that like labs" to the extent that we have articles relating to Labrador retrievers - but yellow labs? bd2412 T 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because I don't like yellow labs; I prefer chocolate ones.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Useless. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three more musical group categories, all created by the same user. Delete per overwhelming precedent (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Also suggest reworking the userbox creation page to strongly discourage the creation of categories for userboxes for musical interests, since they seem to be the big offender here. Horologium (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as nom. Horologium (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, didn't know the policy against musical groups. Ignorance is not a excuse, if they are against policy, then go ahead with deletion. Smile Lee (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete ~~(except the Relient K cat, because I like RK.)~~ (That's a joke, of course) —Scouter Sig 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all listed categories. Useless. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per arguments presented in previous discussion: serve mostly as MySpace-type userpage notices, collaborative potential is generally limited to one article (or one article serves as the most logical hub for collaboration for a group of 2-6 articles), and so on. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, by overwhelming precedent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Additionally, peeps are a food category, which were also ground up in the wiki-garbage disposer. Horologium (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per 3 other precedents. Here is a link to the precedent on the food category Horologium is refering to. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: Lest anyone think I've gone soft, I don't agree with all of those precedents (specifically some of the dietary precedents), but this is one category that is clearly (to me, at least) a single issue user category as well. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to seek or promote collective hatred of any idea, object, or person. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete → No place for hate categories here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete both - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale. Despite the titles, this is actually a "fans of..." category (see the text of ((User Paul McCartney)) and ((User Wings))), so the precedent of the 2007 July 29 discussion for Category:Wikipedians by musician applies. (Also see this recent discussion for Category:Wikipedians interested in Prem Rawat.)

User categories for individuals are neither necessary nor a good idea. They are not necessary because, in all cases, the main biographical article serves as the logical hub for collaboration. (In this case, there is also WikiProject The Beatles.) They are not a good idea because we have hundreds of thousands of biographical articles, and categories for even a small fraction would flood the user category system.

Delete as nom and per precedent (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it concievable to upmerge to a category for the Beatles WikiProject? —ScouterSig 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- While it would be easy to do, the userboxes express only that the user "is a big fan of Paul McCartney", which is not the same as taking an active interest in articles related to The Beatles or being a member of the WikiProject. Also, upon reviewing the categories, I just noticed that they contain no actual users: just two userboxes and a directory of userboxes. The creator's userpage does not actually transclude these userboxes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom. We really need to strongly discourage the creation of categories with music fan userboxes. Horologium (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I recognize that the user box ((User Paul McCartney)) leans somewhat toward fandom, but please focus on the category itself. This is exactly the sort of category we should encourage. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment the category is populated only by the userbox, so a) there are no members of the category and b)anyone who selects the userbox will be added to the category, even if they have no interest in McCartney other than enjoying his songs. If the category is retained, it should be removed from the userbox (which doesn't say the same thing as the category) and moved. It is currently categorized under Category:Wikipedians, since the creator (unsurprisingly) did not follow the instructions for creating categories in userboxes, which clearly state: Userboxes which include category markup that adds the bearing userpage to a category must only categorise within sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians. (The same is true of all four categories I nominated on 4 December.) This is yet another argument to remove the ability to add categories to userboxes, because even fairly explicit instructions are not followed. Horologium (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Useless. However, I disagree with Horologium that the ability to add categories to userboxes should be removed: It's an attempt to make Wikipedia foolproof. All that will happen is that the world will send ever-more-clever fools. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - No consensus to merge/rename to Category:Wikipedian musicians, but rather, there is consensus to use the latter as a parent category. - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't see how a category of editors who are independent musician could foster encyclopedic collaboration (it could foster off-wiki musical collaboration, perhaps, but ...). While it might be useful to know that a particular editor is an independent musician, a userbox or userpage notice will more than suffice. Also, we already have Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument to group users by the instruments that they can play. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedian independent musicians.

Delete as nom. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - this is a tricky one. Although I see your argument about redundancy, is it possible that independent musicians might have knowledge in areas of music production not covered by those user categories? I know very little about music production (professionally, that is), so I'm currently reserving judgment either way. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename as "Wikipedian musicians". It's just a "Wikipedians by instrument" without the instrument. The qualifier "Independednt" is subjective and not necessary besides. —ScouterSig 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Wouldn't that be effectively redundant to the Wikipedians by musical instrument category scheme? Such a category, owing to its breadth, would naturally call for subdivision, presumably by instrument played. Just knowing that a user is a musician does not give much information about him/her, considering the number of different types of music and musical instrument in existence. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I think it would be a new parent in the 'by skill' category, going between 'by skill' and 'by instrument' as Category:Wikipedian martial artists is a parent to the many forms of m.a. Someone may not fit accurately under a specific instrument, just as they may not fit under a specific m.a. form. (I don't think I'm stretching the point too much, am I?) —ScouterSig 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Do you mean a new parent for the 'musical instrument' categories? If so, the 'by instrument' parent category could be placed in Category:Wikipedians by skill... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I was thinking: "by skill" -> "musicians" -> "by instrument." I think we're on the same page.—Scouter Sig 18:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Ok, I see what you mean. Umm ... I'm not convinced that another layer of categorisation is necessary, but I don't strictly oppose it. ... On the whole, I feel that "Wikipedian musicians" is too broad and ambiguous to foster collaboration. For instance, is anyone who plays a musical instrument a musician? I play the piano (not necessarily very well, mind you ...) and sometimes delude myself into thinking that I can play the violin at the level of a beginner, but I don't consider myself a musician. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        A musician category could include composers, singers (including rappers), conductors, song writers (as opposed to performers), arrangers, and possibly someone who works in audio mixing, though that probably wouldn't fly. I understand that sorting by instrument prevents an unusable mess, but it also leaves out people who don't use instruments. And as for me, I have less actual musical talent than this post, so I won't be using the category any time soon :)—Scouter Sig 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Now I understand what you mean. :) I thought you wanted to create Category:Wikipedian musicians solely to house the "by instrument" category and a bunch of user pages, whereas in reality you want it to form the parent of a developed category tree. In that case, I have no objection to creating Category:Wikipedian musicians, though I wonder whether we should rename this category (which contains no actual users, just two userboxes and a userbox directory) or simply create a new one using ((User musician)). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) I suggested Category:Wikipedian musicians to be the new name. Just "move" it. —Scouter Sig 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support this as a parent category as per above discussions. - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category for users of Community Server, "a community collaboration platform that consists of a core blog, forums, photo gallery, and file sharing system", does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. The sole value of the category seems to be as a userpage notice, but this function is served by a userbox or text notice, and does not require a category.

Delete as nom and per precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Are there user cats regarding OS or browser? —ScouterSig 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes, we do: Category:Wikipedians by operating system. However, Community Server is not an actual OS as far as I can tell, but rather online blog software. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom - Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename speedy. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Indian Institute of Technology, Madras to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Indian Institute of Technology Madras

Speedy rename to match the title of the main article: Indian Institute of Technology Madras. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy rename - rationale justified --Antariki Vandanamu 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Wikipedians who studied in the jurisdiction of a particular school board, for grades K-12. While an argument can be made that editors might have an interest in their alma maters, I think it is asking too much to have us believe that the same can be said for school boards. What kindergartener or high school student is interested in the bureaucracy of the educational system to which they happened to belong? The category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and its scope is ambiguous, as it doesn't indicate which school a user attended. In any case, we don't categorise users by the schools they attended in grades K-12, per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Too broad, inclusive and ambiguous a category. May be a candidate for Speedy delete --Antariki Vandanamu 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: although not so broad as to be a candidate for speedy delete (IMO), the category seems to be almost synonymous with Category:Indian Wikipedians. (I assume Antariki Vandanamu will correct me if I'm wrong. I know far too little about that rather large country.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mumbai. No prejudice against future subcategorization if quantity increases. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Alumni of Somaiya Vidhyavihar, University of Mumbai to its parent category (nominated for renaming below)

Nominator's rationale: At minimum, this category needs to be renamed to match convention and to clarify that it is a user category. However, merging seems to be more appropriate than renaming in this case, as Somaiya Vidyavihar does not seem to be a university per se. Rather, it is a group of educational institutions, including ones at the kindergarten level. The category description indicates that the degree was awarded by the University of Mumbai. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that both this category and its parent currently contain only one user each, so this may also be a case of overcategorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Merge - University of Mumbai has hundreds of colleges / institutions under its umbrella. While the degree is awarded under the name, syllabus and rules etc of the University, as the category indicates it is of Alumni, it is more appropriate it remains separate, as that way it is more likely encourage collaboration. On the other hand, if users are categorised under University of Mumbai, they may not have much in common to colloborate in the spirit of Wikipedia --Antariki Vandanamu 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: You make a good point. Currently, however, there are only 2 members. (See my vote/comment below.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) That may be, but the fact that there are only two editors in the whole category tree makes it very easy for anyone seeking to collaborate to simply click on the userpages and find more information from there. I think you make a convincing argument for subcategorising eventually, but it seems premature at this point with only 2 users. I certainly wouldn't object to splitting the "University of Mumbai" alma mater category if there were more users contained. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Rename - in line with convention indicating it is a user category --Antariki Vandanamu 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming that there is no consensus to merge the category, which would be a more appropriate title: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Somaiya Vidhyavihar, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Somaiya Vidhyavihar, University of Mumbai, or something else? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Merge without prejudice against recreating similar categories later if enough users join the category to make it appropriate (per Antariki Vandanamu's comment). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mumbai. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Mumbai University to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mumbai

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article: University of Mumbai. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy rename - rationale justified --Antariki Vandanamu 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy rename –Pomte 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Uttar Pradesh Technical University. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Uttar Pradesh Technical University

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article and because the ", Lucknow" disambiguator is unneeded. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy rename - rationale justified --Antariki Vandanamu 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy rename –Pomte 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bihari to Category:Bihari Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though I do not oppose the suggested rename, I think the convention of Category:Wikipedians by location is more applicable, since Bihar is an Indian state. I have relocated the category to Category:Wikipedians in India. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Rename. Marlith ^T/C 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. Agree with Black Falcon. –Pomte 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Horologium (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:User Kanji learner to Category:User Hani

Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedians by writing system follows the ISO 15924 standard, which assigns Kanji the four-letter code: "Hani". See ISO 15924:Hani and here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom. –Pomte 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Horologium (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all to Category:User AppleScript. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:User Ascript-2 to Category:User applescript-2 or Category:User AppleScript-2

Nominator's rationale: "Ascript" is not clear enough, as it could refer to both AppleScript and ActionScript. The category should be renamed to match the title of its parent (Category:User applescript), or it and the parent should be renamed per the second option. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename to either proposed option, with preference to Category:User applescript-2 to match title of its parent. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge all to Category:User AppleScript per AppleScript. As in the ABAP one above, I presume that there is no need for babelisation in this case. For an additional interesting example showing confusion in naming, see Template:User Ascript-n. (One of these days I'll get around to nominating all the -N programming userboxes for deletion, as nonsensical.)- jc37 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge all to Category:User AppleScript as per jc37. Oppose merge of category to Category:User applescript as per below rationale. (IOW, rename parent, and merge this cat into the new parent.) Horologium t-c 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment While it has been the convention in the past to use all-lowercase category names, it appears to be a holdover from the language categories, which use the (all-lowercase) ISO 639 names, and writing systems, which use the (all lowercase) ISO 15924 names. Since programming languages are neither, and some of the names could create confusion (such as TeX/tex), I suggest that the programming categories use the actual name of the language, including the same use of case as the relevant article. Horologium t-c 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC) As it looks like the parent may be renamed, can someone tag it as well? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I initiate a new discussion for the parent or simply link to this one? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please link to this one - sorry for the edit conflicts --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged by Horologium. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that. (grin) Horologium (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I realise only now that I didn't note this in the original discussion, but I support the proposal to merge/rename to Category:User AppleScript. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: EMBL to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: European Molecular Biology Laboratory

Nominator's rationale: Category titles generally should not contain acronyms. Although this category is currently being used only for alumni of EMBL in Heidelberg, I see no real value (in terms of fostering collaboration) in having separate categories for laboratories in different cities. ~~Thus, if the category is renamed as above, the userbox should be modified to drop the "in Heidelberg" part.~~ – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename per nom, but there's no reason to change the userbox. Other userboxes could be created for each city with all of them linking to the same category. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Good point ... userboxes can be much narrower in scope than categories. I've stricken the sentence from the nomination. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: INPG to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Grenoble Institute of Techology or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Institut Polytechnique de Grenoble

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article or the French-language name of the university. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: INPG to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Grenoble Institute of Techology per article name. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Grenoble Institute of Techology]]. This is en.wikipedia.org. —Scouter Sig 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian aircraft pilots. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedian pilots to Category:Wikipedian aviators

Nominator's rationale: As with Category:Pilots, this category could refer to aviators or harbour pilots. I doubt anyone has used it for the latter, particularly given the "airplane pilot" userbox displayed on the category page, so I think it's safe to move the category's members with the assumption that they are aviators. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: moved here from CfD as a procedural relist at the correct forum; neutral. Bencherlite^Talk 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- My mistake; thanks. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - No problem, all part of the service. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom to match Category:Aviators. Nothing is lost in the rename and some clarity is gained. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom and BF. —Scouter Sig 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I could be mistaken, but there seems to be a semantic difference here. How about: Category:Wikipedian aircraft pilots? (Or even: Wikipedian pilots of aircraft.) I see the CfD discussion, and think that perhaps consensus could change in this case. If it's preferred, I can nominate Category:Aviators for renaming first. - jc37 01:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Aircraft pilot currently redirects to Aviator (also see [[Pilot]]). What do you think is the semantic difference between the terms? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Well for one thing: "The word is normally applied to pilots, but it can be applied more broadly, for example to include people such as wing-walkers who regularly take part in an aerobatic display sequence." - It's too broad in definition. But it's also in the way the term can be used. Consider the comparison chart at Waste collector. UK vs. US usage aside, I think there's a semantic difference between being called a "Dustman" and being called a "Sanitation engineer". I get the same "sense" from pilot vs. aviator. - jc37 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Thanks for the clarification. I have no objection to "aircraft pilots"; in fact, it's probably the more commonly-used term. I think both suggested titles constitute an improvement over the current title. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#Category:Wikipedians by high school and subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support delete per standard. —Scouter Sig 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G1 (patent nonsense). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose speedy delete

I don't know much about user category policies, but this seems like patent nonsense or possible violation of NPA. --Steven J. Anderson 06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: SAIT to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: SAIT Polytechnic or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Southern Alberta Institute of Technology

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article (SAIT Polytechnic) or the full name of the university. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per process. —Scouter Sig 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University at Kingston to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University

Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the main article and the full name of the university. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support rename per process. —Scouter Sig 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

December 30

Category:Wikipedians interested in counter terrorism

Category:Wikipedians who like the Mirror universe

Catholic schools

Category:Arab Canadian Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians interested in Natural Sciences

Category:Singularitarian Wikipedians

December 29

Category:Wikipedians with academic publications

December 28

Category:Wikipedians interested in mobile

Category:Wikipedians who like Mitch Hedberg

Category:Wikipedian Devon Werkheiser fans

December 25

Category:Eguor editors

December 24

Category:Canadian Wikipedian Bloggers

Category:Wikipedians with pictures

Category:Public domain minor edit license

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Admin criteria

Category:Blenderhead Wikipedians

Category:Babylon 5 Fan Wikipedians

December 23

Category:!Wikipedians in Brazil

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)

Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians in quality

Category:Wikipedians who listen to big band

Category:Wikipedian Enviornmentalists

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Tanz-Metall

Category:Wikipedians who does not tolerate harassment

Category:Wikipedians who use LinkedIn

Category:Wikipedians with astigmatism

Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project

December 22

Category:Wikipedians who BOINC

Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing

Category:Wikipedians who are armed with all

December 21

PGP

December 20

Category:Wikipedians against notability

Wikimedia and advertising

Category:Wikipedians against censorship

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Dan Patrick Show

December 19

Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Rock[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to J-Pop[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Electric folk[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Thrash metal[edit]

Category:Shoegazing Wikipedians

December 18

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Christian Brothers College High School

Category:Public domain licensing

December 17

Category:User ja-ksb

Category:Wikipedians interested in the subject of Chinese reunification

Category:Christian Anarchist Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Williamsville East High School

Various subcats of Category:Wikipedians by music genre

Category:Kolmogorovian Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians by Erdős number and all subcategories

Category:Wikipedians with Keep It Simple layouts

Category:Wikipedians who read school stories

Category:Wikipedians who dislike the scrolling fundraising notice

December 15

Category:Wikipedians that use Illogicopedia

Category:Wikipedian League of Old Codgers

Subcategories of Category:Wikipedians interested in LPMuds

Category:Wikipedians with Mayflower ancestors

Wikipedians by software

Category:Wikipedians by media player

Wikipedians by desktop environment

Wikipedians by email client

Category:Wikipedians who use OpenOffice.org

Category:Wikipedians who use Joomla!

Category:Wikipedians who use BOINC

Category:Wikipedians who use WhatPulse

Category:Wikipedians who use Prime95

Category:Wikipedians who use LabVIEW