Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/February 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2007 March 2007 >

February 27

[edit]

Category:Users Who Have Found Selfworm's Hidden Page

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, tagged CSD G7 instead per author's request. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. No need to categorize users into this. I'll admit it was somewhat hard to resist signing my name on the page for a free barnstar, but it was a bit too silly for my taste. VegaDark 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AIM proficiency categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all but 0 to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger; delete 0 per precedent.--Mike Selinker 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need proficiency categories for instant messaging programs. All should be merged to Category:Wikipedians who use AOL Instant Messenger. VegaDark 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neopets categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all to Category:Wikipedians who play Neopets.--Mike Selinker 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first three should be upmerged to the parent category of Category:Wikipedians who play Neopets. Categorizing past that is not helpful and is overcategorization. Note that there are 51 other types of Neopets that, thankfully, do not have a category for them yet. Let's stop this trend before we are going to have to nominate all 54. The last should be merged since it is a duplicate with different wording. VegaDark 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are Cancer

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. I recently speedied Category:Wikipedians who are Gemini for the same reason. VegaDark 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly different wording on a recreated zodiac category.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are currently being watched by he who must not be named

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's Hastur or Voldemort, but regardless, it's no good as a category.--Mike Selinker 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 26

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who report vandalism

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A well-intentioned category, but unfortunately it is not helpful at all. All Wikipedians should revert/report vandalism if it becomes necessary. I see no reason why someone would go looking into this category to find users. We don't need to categorize this, a userbox is enough. VegaDark 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who drink far too much milk

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food category, which we have historically deleted. Does not help encyclopedia building to categorize users into this. VegaDark 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who dislike being barefoot

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "not" category violation. Does not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users who speak Bork! Bork! Bork! categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This language is the language of Swedish Chef, a fictional character on The Muppet Show. This should be deleted because this is a non-existent language, and these are joke categories. Nobody can speak this at different proficiencies. Does not help Wikipedia to categorize users into these categories. Silly stuff like this can be constrained to userboxes, we don't need categories as well. VegaDark 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 25

[edit]

Users who speak gibberish categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent language. Joke categories. Nobody can speak gibberish at different proficiencies. Does not help Wikipedia to categorize users into these categories. Silly stuff like this can be constrained to userboxes, we don't need categories as well. VegaDark 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who understand ParserFunctions

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions - jc37 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions per user category naming conventions.VegaDark 07:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users of Slavic ancestry

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians of Slavic ancestry.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Slavic Wikipedians per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. VegaDark 07:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who like Xiaolin Showdown

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

The result of the debate was deleted and moved by myself—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians who like Xiaolin Showdown per user category naming conventions. VegaDark 07:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who know Cremepuff222 and Category:Wikipedians who know Crempuff222

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category names speak for themselves. Are we prepared to have one of these for each of Wikipedia's 3,663,373 users? VegaDark 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have selected the "fut" series userbox

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by user request below. VegaDark 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a category made just for the sake of having one associated with the userbox. Does not facilitate collaboration, does not help Wikipedia in any way. VegaDark 06:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 06:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of that category and the userboxes that are associated with it, I was merely curious as to how many users had chosen my handiwork. That was the first (and easiest) method that came to my mind to keep track of such a thing. If there is another method of keeping track (or if the category just needs to go,) I won't stand in the way of the deletion of the category in question. Doublediapason 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can check who is using it by going to the page the template is located on and clicking the "What links here" link on the left side of the screen. Everyone that has "(Transclusion)" next to their name are using the userbox. VegaDark 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete → User:Vegadark Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ignoring that it's a userbox for a moment, this is a category which has members based on what pages have the template transcluded. A category in this case should exist (and be named) based on the subject of the template, not the template itself. So, for example, a category listing all the categories up for deletion, should refer to that, not that every member of the category has a CFD template transcluded. Hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. Very well, I am appeased. Do with the category as you see fit. Thank goodness for diplomacy, eh? Doublediapason 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who can't watch The Late Show anymore

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No use to Wikipedia. "Not" category, does not facilitate collaboration, keeping would justify creation of "cannot watch ____ show anymore" category for any TV show. VegaDark 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, jc37. Causesobad → (Talk) 08:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 24

[edit]

Category:User has a Wii and Category:Wii hopefuls to Category:Wikipedians who play Wii

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge the first, delete the second.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both need to be merged per past precedent. VegaDark 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are neither a Republican nor a Democrat

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, G7. Picaroon 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "not" category violation. We have categories for whatever political party the user might be in, they can add themselves to those. VegaDark 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who wish they had a omnitrix to Category:Wikipedians who like Ben 10

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs renaming per naming conventions in Category:Wikipedians interested in television. VegaDark 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 Alma mater categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all.--Mike Selinker 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These all need to be renamed/merged because they all start with "users" instead of "Wikipedians". Also we need to have a standard naming convention for high school categories. VegaDark 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians on Desciclopédia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge.--Mike Selinker 10:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent consensus to merge the Wikipedians on Eincyclopedia (The Hebrew language version of Uncyclopedia) category to Category: Wikipedians who use Uncyclopedia, this should be no different. VegaDark 06:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Memphis Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say this should be renamed to Wikipedians from/in Memphis, but in this case I think the category should be deleted because the only userpage in the category is MfD material (two near-identical user pages were nomitated by Xiner a while back and were both deleted). VegaDark 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Serbia and Montenegro

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

The result of the debate was delete. I'll make any templates that use this category switch to Category:Wikipedians in Serbia per Duja, if a user ends up in the wrong cat they can simply remove themselves. VegaDark 20:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem like a hot potato, but the country exists no more, and we already have categories for the former constituent states.

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

February 23

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who believe in Santa

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not benefit encyclopedia in any way I can think of. I could possibly see a rename if someone wants to propose something that could facilitate collaboration on more than one article. VegaDark 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. Here's the definition I get from article Religion: "A Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a number of persons. Religious adherence to codified beliefs and rituals generally involves faith in spirituality and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction." Another point: "Other religions believe in personal revelation and responsibility. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions." The belief in Santa can be considered a "religion" in the narrow meaning of "religion", since it's held by a considerable number of persons. Causesobad → (Talk) 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition, Category:Wikipedians who believe in the Tooth Fairy would be a religion. Would you advocate keeping that category as well? VegaDark 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it has been deleted yet. Causesobad → (Talk) 10:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians from Eritrea to Category:Wikipedians in Eritrea

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. I recommend a group nom for all "from" categories next time, or simply open a discussion about these types of categories in general to determine what the consensus on these is. VegaDark 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not following the common naming convention of the rest of Category:Wikipedians by location. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Filipino Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Philippines

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. VegaDark 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not following the common naming convention of the rest of Category:Wikipedians by location. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian Grade 5 flautists and Category:Wikipedian Grade 8 pianists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 11:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User flute-4 and Category:User piano-4 are for playing at a professional level, so you can't get any higher than that. No other instrument categories have a level 5 or 8 category, also these aren't named using the proper conventions and flute has a typo. VegaDark 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedian citizens of Lovely

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely isn't a real nation. And it hasn't citizenship. If you don't want to directly trash it, we can rename it so something like Category:Wikipedians interested in Lovely.

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Wikipedia

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

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it means "Wikipedians interested in Wikipedia"? I think it's a joke category. Anyway, it really doesn't help cooperation between users in any way. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User 1337-X

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up babel level category for a non-ISO language. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User 1337-N

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native speaker category I missed earlier. Can't be true as there are no native speakers of 1337, does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User 1337-0

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This user has no idea what the hell 1337 is and/or prefers to contribute using proper words." - 0-level non-iso language category that does not facilitate collaboration. Also a "not" category. VegaDark 00:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Banker Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedian bankers

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Rename - jc37 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every other category in Wikipedians by profession is following a common syntax. This one should too. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who support changing the New Zealand flag to Category:Wikipedians who support changing the flag of New Zealand

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

The result of the debate was rename, no consensus for deletion. Feel free to renominate this for deletion in the future, however. VegaDark 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NCCAT. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who oppose welfare reform to Category:Wikipedians who oppose welfare reform in the United States

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

The result of the debate was rename. VegaDark 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't explain what welfare reform. By closer look on the simbol of the related userbox I've guessed it's the United States's one. So, for WP:NCCAT, I suggest renaming. However, I wouldn't oppose a deletion. Also, one user only. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 22

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians for gender equality

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

The result of the debate was rename to category:Wikipedians who support gender equality. VegaDark 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everybody should be in this category. Doesn't facilitate collaboration. Only one user. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users Wish Lists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name speaks for itself. Do we need this? Only one user. If no consensus to delete, it at minimum needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedian wish lists. VegaDark 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fascist Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/September_2006#Category:Fascist_Wikipedians. VegaDark 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, clearly against Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 21

[edit]

Wikipedians born in (YEAR)

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

The result of the debate was re-structure as per the following conditions:

  • Delete age categories for Wikipedians under 18, as the costs (eternal arguing about protecting the children and plus the probability of child predators lurking the categories) outweigh the benefits (serving as a medium for youth to find other youth).
  • Merging the age categories into decade-like blocks, e.g. Category:Wikipedians in their 20s, Category:Wikipedians in their 30s, etc. I am not sure how a category for Wikipedians aged 18 and 19 would work; someone can figure that out. This allows for wanted age grouping yet it cuts down on the "social networking" categories.

This is an attempt at compromising the parties with differing opinions. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of every last user category, but that would cause more edits towards complaining about the deletion/advocating the deletion than towards articles. A lot of articles need help, you know. How about we move away towards the user categories for a while and take a look at articles needing improvement? Or how about reducing the various backlogs?

I may be weighing in on this matter now, and while this UCFD would traditionally be closed as a no-consensus, that will mean all this talking and notvoting would have been in vain. Something had to be accomplished. If you want my proposed plan to happen, make it so. If you think my plan is bad, then find a solution quick or none of our articles will get any better. Remember the Prime Directive. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss this, please do so on this Community Noticeboard post. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is not a "nomination for deletion" of any specific article or set of categories (ok, fine, it is. but what I meant when I wrote this is that a consensus arrived at here may be to restore categories presently deleted). I know I'm breaking the format, but I think that with all the back-and-forth/wheel-warring/WP:POINT/general chaos on this issue, the time has come to ignore that. So... While this is still not a vote, instead of not-voting keep or delete etc, I would like for you to all instead not-vote with the following choices:

Allow all - Allow all birth year categories (i.e., so far as 2007)
13 and over only - Allow (as of 2007) 1993? 1994? and earlier.
18 and over only - Allow (as of 2007) 1989? 1988? and earlier.
No specific years - Upmerge all specific year categories to decades.
Remove all - Eliminate this entire class of user categories.

You can of course come up with another appropriate not-vote text and state your position and reasoning behind it.

  • Remove allNo specific years - I think these categories, as a group, fall under the WP:UBX recommendation "Do not create categories which could potentially include all Wikipedians". These aren't particularly useful categories. --Random832 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Amarkov makes a good point about the usefulness of decade cats[reply]
  • Remove all if only because we don't want adults to be forced into these cats or children to advertise themselves. Xiner (talk, email) 16:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years. Decades have some degree of collaborative usefulness, since you can get people who would know about a certain span of time. Specific years have no such usefulness. But we already did this not that long ago. -Amarkov moo! 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. I see no problem with these categories. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to use them or not.--Grace E. Dougle 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. It's lame to compare decade cats with specific years cats. Being born in 1990 and 1999 are totally different. PeaceNT 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years - but I could see going in 5 year chunks instead of 10. There is a huge difference in 10 years but users within 5 years of eachother can reasonably be grouped together, so that someone may seek out someone from a particular era for collaboration. I'd probably make the most recent "born in 1985-1990", and not create the 1991-1995 category for a few years. If no consensus for this just remove all. VegaDark 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • chunks but I could also see no specific years at all. In any case, not below a certain age 16 suggested as compromise between 13 and 18. DGG 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all. So long as any of them exist, editors are going to argue about individual categories. I can't see how they help to build an encyclopedia in any case. Not MySpace and all that. My quick and dirty survey suggests that most Wikipedians don't know which year they were born in as they haven't categorised themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years: per Amarkov. Causesobad → (Talk) 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all these may be used for various age-related statistics when someone will be writing a paper on Wikipedia, and we want more of these, right?  Grue  10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No specific years with no decade for 1990 - 1999 (until 2008), and 2000 - 2010. --Bduke 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. This category is one of the most important and fundamental on Wikipedia. This pedophiles-on-the-internet business is a huge moral panic that should be avoided. Christopher Connor 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stop the merry go round, I want to get off! by my own tally, this will be the 5th time this matter (and related matters) have hit user categories for deletion, two deletion reviews, an RfC and a case before the arbcom. It's time to just... let... it... go. If eliminating all user year categories is the way to go, I have no objection, it's not exactly a useful category for collaboration anyway. While I reject that every last user cat should be identically-named and immedialy of encyclopedic use, there should be a general purpose, knowing someone is a fan of a game/movie/ect. means that they might be willing to help you with a related article, knowing someone's other interests might help you bring articles to their attention, but age categories do nothing productive. As a note on potential compromises, I don't care if it's chunks or years, but the issue of categorization of minors has been adiquately covered before, the consensus is clear, repeatedly, Jimbo even weighed in (yeah, not exactly binding, but I like Jimbo!). Wintermut3 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all. The DRV debates have shown that arbitrary cut-offs don't work. There seems to be a demand for these, so allow all of them. I'll be the first to add myself to Category:Wikipedians born in 2007 :D --- RockMFR 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13+ only. These seem fine, but I do believe that those under 13 need protection, which unfortunately means restrictions on their behavior in this case.--Mike Selinker 04:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adult only - As mentioned above, we've recently had an arbcom case about this, and one of the results was that children should be counselled if they list their ages on their userpages. This, by its very nature would include user categories. So at least that part has been determined for us. However, the actual age that one is to be considered a "child" was not a part of the results. There was a finding that Consequences of absence of policy is that if there is no policy, handling should be on a case-by-case basis. So it would seem what we have to decide is for the purpose of this page (which concerns user categories), at what age is a person no longer a child? It would seem that, in general, the number is somewhere between 13 and 18. So I suggest this compromise: The year categories which would show a Wikipedian as older than 18 should be "just fine" (as MS said above), and 13 to 18 year old Wikipedians grouped in some different way (but not subcategorised by age - something like: Category:Wikipedians between 13 and 18 years old), with no category for those under 13. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's debatable whether or not Arbcom has the power to dictate things like that, but it's irrelevant here, because they did not say that identifying as a child is banned. If you think that a category should be banned, then that's fine, but don't invoke a nonexistent Arbcom ruling about it. -Amarkov moo! 04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes they did. I'll have to go back over the findings to give you some exact quotes. - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all - irrelevant to editing an encyclopedia. If you want to reveal such information by all means put something on your userpage, but it's not an appropriate way to categorise users. Metamagician3000 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow all - Useful for other users to join a wikipedia community of their own age, or year they were born. I thought this was about community building and healthy communication amongst the users in order to ensure that people don't end up in too many arguments over articles, creating a better freindly atmosphere, this is one way to do that. To add more, I do disbelieve that anyone under the age of 16, not 13 should be categorised in Wikpedia at all. Amlder20 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow all Wikipedia is not censored for minors. I will stand against every age-related stuff. Why? Because I think, and in my internet experience I've seen, that too many people judge other people by their age. So, even if I know that it's the user the one who puts himself in the category, I don't belive we should allow this kind of stuff. Even here at wikipedia, I've seen cases of wikipedians who judge other wikipedians on that base. Sorry - Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three parts to what I think:
    • 1. Delete under 13: COPPA (in the United States) would imply that we can't allow identification of those under 13.
    • 2. Merge 13-17: the "privacy protection" arbcom ruling seems to imply to me that we shouldn't allow SPECIFING what age a person is, although we can allow specifying that they ARE teenagers, at least to me.
    • 3. Allow 18 and above or merge as otherwise decided. I figure that adults can judge how much privacy they wish to have!
  • — CJewell (talk to me) 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate issue straw poll
[edit]

This came up with 1993 and 1989 in particular: Should the year (or decade, if upmerged) in which some wikipedians are under the arbitrary age we choose and some are over, be allowed to exist as a category?

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

Native speakers of non-ISO language cats

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all.--Mike Selinker 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is a native speaker of any of these. Having these categories is silly and in no way helps the encyclopedia. Let's clean some of this mess up, shall we? VegaDark 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen them in the past. One such example is that Oregon or Washington (I don't recall which) was on a search for those who could speak Klingon, because they had people who would only speak Klingon, and they needed some way to communicate. I'll have to do some searching to refresh my memory. This, of course, sidesteps a larger question: How do we define "Native speaker"? - jc37 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian Guitar Heros to Category:Wikipedians who play Guitar Hero

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians who play Guitar Hero.--Mike Selinker 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming conventions at Category:Wikipedians who play video games. VegaDark 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who are addicted to Presidents to Category:Wikipedians interested in United States politics

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians interested in United States Presidents.--Mike Selinker 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikilink in users addicted to presidents links to President of the United States by the way, before anyone points out that the US isn't the only country with a President. This user category has a couple problems. Says "Users" instead of Wikipedians and says addicted to presidents? That doesn't make any sense to me. VegaDark 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 20

[edit]

High school categories

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

The result of the debate was no action taken, looks like we will have to determine consensus once individual categories become nominated. VegaDark 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many naming conventions used at Category:Wikipedians by high school. There are a couple things we can do here. Personally I'm undecided if we even need these categories. College alumni cats are great, since Wikipedians by college allows for collaboration on many articles (see everything in Category:Oregon State University for instance) but Wikipedians by high school categories allow for collaboration on only a single article, the article on that high school. I don't think this is particularly helpful, I think categories should facilitate collaboration on at least several articles, or else we would be allowing creation of over 1.6 million user categories (one for each article). The next issue is all the different naming conventions. I think if these are to be kept they need a standard naming convention. The most-used one right now looks like "Wikipedians by High School:xxx high school" but I'm pretty sure other countries don't all use "high school". I'm not proposing or tagging anything just yet, I'd like a discussion on it first, I will tag everything if it looks like we are coming to a consensus. VegaDark 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved this back to the top of the page. Closing this as "no consensus" isn't going to help, we need more comments as to if we should delete this, or if not, what the standard naming convention should be. VegaDark 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say keep them, because even if they don't collaborate on articles about the school, finding wikipedians who you may know in real life can be helpful. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the high school categories. (Presuming that they are all secondary education schools, and not trade school or college level of some kind. There was a lengthy discussion on WP:CFD about issues in school naming.) I would not oppose merging the schools of a large school system to a single category (such as the Chicago public school system). But those of springtown anystate don't seem to me to be useful for anything but socialising. - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make them all "Wikipedians from"... and do the same with all college categories. In advance, "Not it."--Mike Selinker 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sibling categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (now we just have to figure out how).--Mike Selinker 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And any other sibling categories that I might have missed or may be created in the future. These should at minimum be merged into Category:Wikipedians with siblings. I will also be fine if the consensus is to delete these. VegaDark 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 19

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and all subpages

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as both noms were made by a troll account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Nothing useful about keeping a list of usernames for everyone to see, most which violate NPOV and privacy. There is no point in maintaining these lists, Delete. Jim Pooele 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and all subpages

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as both noms were made by a troll account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Another list we can get rid of. Again, I'm sure admin users will want to keep it, but many regular users will probably be glad to see it go, Jim Pooele 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 18

[edit]

Category:Eguor admins to Category:Wikipedia Eguor administrators

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no action; needs to be relisted with category:Rouge admins.--Mike Selinker 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be renamed to have an indication that this is a Wikipedian category, at minimum. Not sure if we even need this category to be honest, and I wouldn't be opposed to deletion if that's what consensus decides. VegaDark 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could change both categories to add Wikipedian in front of it, and make no other changes, and then renominate them together to determine the admin/admins/other trivial changes. VegaDark 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who quit World of Warcraft

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a "not" category. Do we allow categories for people who have quit every game? Not helpful for collaboration. VegaDark 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dr. Maressa Orzack in August 8, 2006 40% of World of Warcraft players clamed to be addicted. To beat the game u gotta quit the game... LAWL!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs).

  • Can you find references/sources for such addictions? If so, then yes, otherwise, no. By the way, Warcraft and Everquest, among others, do have such references. (See the article for a start...) - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:TDS Original userbox

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - Combined with a Neutral response from the category creator, the category introduction of "Just for fun" sealed its fate. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Apparently users are auto-added to this category whenever they put a userbox created by User:The Dark Side on their page. No need for this, does not help encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black Speech of Mordor categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: consensus to delete 0, and merge 5 and N into the highest remaining cat; no consensus on rest. There was enough dissent against deleting the main category, and some argument over whether to merge or leave alone the rest. A few of us pushed deleting or merging the fringe categories over the line, but not the rest.--Mike Selinker 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out what lanugage these categories were when I came accross this gem that explains what these are used for. Joke categories do not help the encyclopedia. VegaDark 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as nominator. VegaDark 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not useful. Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Frankly I see a distinction between the linguistic categories (even those for non-ISO languages) and many other userbox categories. Many constructed languages have books written in them. Given that Tolkien was one of the greatest linguistic scholars of the 20th century, I think his languages are far from jokes and should be given far more leeway than "bork" for example. And yes, I can really can speak it if you care to know. IronGargoyle 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the examples of Black Speech given are wholly canonical/authentic; this may be the "neo-Black Speech" referred to in the the Black Speech article itself... See [1] and [2] and the Black Speech article itself, which point out that it's actually quite fragmentary. Uthanc 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Yes, the templates which populate these are indeed based on one of the several different 'extended' black speech/orcish vocabularies which have been developed by various sources. Yes, 'level 0' linguistic templates and categories are typically intended for announcing that a user does not know the language the wiki is written in - which isn't relevant here since there is no 'black speech' wiki. However, the fact is that there is a constructed language called 'the black speech' which has some 'official' vocabulary and has been the subject of numerous efforts at analysis and expansion. Deleting these would be inherently a temporary measure as it is guaranteed that shortly another user would come along and re-create them... not as a "joke" or to be disruptive, but because we have such templates and categories for nearly all such languages. --CBD 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Real-world and significant con-lang cats are useful. This isn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, it took me 2 minutes to figure out what these are about. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all - Firstly, (what little of) this language has existed in print ever since 1954 and thus is not just a "joke"... Secondly, given that the userboxes are based on one of several different versions of extended Black Speech/Orkish (according to CBD), I think it's best to just have one, with "This user speaks the Black Speech" in English. I'd say Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin constructed languages are far more significant than this version of Black Speech, as those two were left much more developed by Tolkien himself, irregardless of later "scholars"; so I'd keep all of their userboxes, since they're likely to be more "authentic" than these. Thirdly - regarding usefulness, what's the difference between Tolkien language userboxes and Klingon, Newspeak and in fact all other constructed language userboxes? Doesn't their usefulness lie in showing the interests of users? Uthanc 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most - As per the more recent discussion on native languages, I do not see a need for a native template for this, either (unless a verifiable resource says such a native speaker exists); but then again I also do not see the harm in including such gimmicky userboxes and categories -- which are already commonplace on userpages, even among some of the Wikipedia elders and admins. It helps lighten the mood in the sometimes hostile realm of Wikipedia editing. As for the remaining classes, apart from native, I support keeping them -- the Tolkien languages do have legitamacy: they include vocabulary, grammar, and your other typical lingual constructs and devices. It is very possible that people can pick up some simple aspects to get a 0 or 1 class; and the dedicated few whom attempt to become fluent may be able to assist the Tolkien-related articles. --Thisisbossi 12:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge all to Category:User blksp - I agree with User:Uthanc. I think we could make an exception to the use of the babel system for langagues when categorising "not-fully-constructed" languages. I think a single category (and a single userbox, for that matter, though it's outside the purview of this discussion) is enough in this case. - jc37 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0, merge 5 and N. I don't agree with the "not-fully-constructed" argument, but it definitely can't have the fringe categories.--Mike Selinker 11:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians with no siblings to Category:Wikipedians who are an only child

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (but probably needs to wait for the other sibling categories to get changed, due to complexity of code).--Mike Selinker 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rename avoids the "not" category issue. Wouldn't be opposed to a delete either. VegaDark 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 17

[edit]

Category:Notchav Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who edit WikiChix

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article on WikiChix, so this does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you went through the effort to create such a Wikia wiki, and it was open, and being "used", then yes, I likely would. But then, I support allowing Wikia categories, per the talk page (and Category:Wikipedians by website). Note that the name of your wiki which suggests that only you can edit it, does not mean that in truth only you can edit it. However, if it's a wiki of one person - I think at least 4 members seems to be the consensus when the category isn't part of a categorisation schema (like the album cats) - then no, I might suggest deletion. But that's not the case in this case, I think? - jc37 11:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The difference between this and VegaDark's hypothetical Wiki is that Ali is allowing others (at least of one gender) to edit it. And the Wiki has only been open for a couple months. If WikiChix is still an Ali-only category in three months, then sure, delete it. But let's give it a chance to thrive.--Mike Selinker 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Uncyclopedia to Category:Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to category:Wikipedians who use Uncyclopedia. (I'm anticipating what I think is a fairly obvious result of a rename discussion.)--Mike Selinker 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category, so they should be merged. I'm not sure I like the name "Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia" but first things first. I may submit a rename in the future. VegaDark 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a subcat of the parent category doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete it. It's of our duty to clear unnecessary promiscuous stuffs which play no roles in developing the collaboration of Wiki (for which main goal is to improve the quality of content). Knowing a person enjoying or being a member of Uncyclopedia or not is worthless information, since this website is totally humor from the very beginning. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 16

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who have survived an attack by a crazed astronaut

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by another admin. Xiner (talk, email) 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created to go along with a user box here. Looks like WP:NPA to me. --EarthPerson 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 15

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who will not drink Foster's beer

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both a "not" AND a food category. How did this one slip by us for over a month? Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who dislike Harry Potter

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have historically deleted other "dislike" categories, this should be no different. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users who are not interested in Uncyclopedia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have historically deleted other "not interested in" categories, this should be no different. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who aren't administrators

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "not" category. It does not help to categorize users by what they aren't, only by what they are. VegaDark 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the category to go with the userbox, so it would be neat and tidy to go along with the 'Wikipedians who aren't admins and don't want to be'. I have no problem with the deletion of the category, I have no attachment to it whatsoever, but it will then leave a gap, since there is a category for the other type of 'not's (and in fact there is a category for most or all userboxes, no?). But like I said, I don't care personally. And BTW I created the 'not' userbox to appease an editor who wanted a userbox that stated his status as a non-administrator without adding an opinion about it (he had earlier edited the other userbox). Anchoress 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99.7% of Wikipedia accounts are not admins', so this category is not very useful. Most people on this page are actually against "not" categories (cf. "not" userboxes). They are two different things and I think the "not admin and don't wanna be" cat is more useful. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, I was just trying to do User:Squeakbox a favour so he would leave the userbox 'not an admin and don't want to be' alone. Anchoress 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC, Anchoress. But if you keep this cat, you'll put yourself in hardship since you have to continually update every new member in user creation logs. It's a hard work, and I don't want you to lose much strength in it :). Causesobad → (Talk) 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dood, did you read my comment above? I don't care if the cat is deleted. But I don't understand what you're talking about about manually updating? Sorry, I am a total n00b v/v categories. And why are you so concerned about my wellbeing? Do we know each other? Anchoress 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bullshitter Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as category has already been discussed and deleted before. VegaDark 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking similar case to this, only two users in the category and one of them looks almost exactly like the two who's user pages were deleted via MfD after Xiner nominated them. Feel free to nominate these two as well ;) VegaDark 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 12

[edit]

Category:Misogynist Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete.--Mike Selinker 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Misogynist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:NPOV. Whereas categories such as Category:Masculist Wikipedians and Category:Feminist Wikipedians show support for justice and human rights, misogyny implies irrational hatred, targeted specifically toward a single gender. The creator of this category (the only user found in it) has stated this is a category for "Wikipedians who harbour a degree of contempt for women, for whatever reason". We have yet to see a Category:Misandrist Wikipedians! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who hope Richard Stallman and Creative Commons will reconcile their licenses

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable stance, but I don't see how it helps encyclopedia or community building to categorize people into this, a userbox seems more than enough. I hope lots of things happen, but I don't need to make a category for each of them. VegaDark 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians by year of joining Wikipedia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. VegaDark 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the 3 subcategories of Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2004, Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2005, and Category:Wikipedians who joined Wikipedia in 2006. These are recently created categories and I don't feel they help encyclopedia or community building, but I'm willing to listen to arguments of keeping them if someone thinks they do. VegaDark 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 11

[edit]

Category:HIV-positive Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. VegaDark 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:HIV-positive Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category only contains 1 user who's supposed to be dead (User:Buttered Bread). Really useless category. Causesobad → (Talk) 04:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who will join this category, except for a supposed-to-be-dead user? Causesobad → (Talk) 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a merge into Category:Wikipedians with a virus. Xiner (talk, email) 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians vigilant about external links. VegaDark 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who oppose excessive external links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this category needed? I don't think there's much debate about the external links guideline. Picaroon 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 10

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians Walking Mancunian Way

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted by user request. VegaDark 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what this category is for, but It seems as if it is for people who walk along A57(M) motorway, which Mancunian Way redirects to. I see no possible use for this category. VegaDark 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians Who Use Hieroglyphs to Category:Wikipedians interested in hieroglyphs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename or delete, but I am going to move it to Category:Wikipedians who use hieroglyphs per proper capitalization. VegaDark 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better conveys that this is supposed to be used for collaboration, as per other "interested in" categories. At minimum needs proper capitalization. VegaDark 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use HeavenGames

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeavenGames, resulting in delete. No article means it cannot facilitate collaboration, so it should be deleted. VegaDark 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who oppose quackery

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in alternative medicine issues. VegaDark 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "not" category. Does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in breweries. This fits better than "brewing" because it is more in the spirit of the original category. VegaDark 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food category in disguise. We have historically deleted food categories so I don't see why this should be any different. VegaDark 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who create their own userboxes to Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (I should have done this then).--Mike Selinker 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete this earlier, but nobody argued that the current name should be kept, hence I think this should be speedy renamed. I think we can all agree that this is at least a better name. VegaDark 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 9

[edit]

Category:Drug-free Wikipedians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. We have Category:Wikipedians who oppose drugs for the political stance, and Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs for collaboration. Consensus looks to show that this category is not needed. VegaDark 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed these as no consensus, but I'm listing this one again. I think it should either be deleted as a rare intersection of the "not" and "food" categories, or, failing that, merged into the new category:Wikipedians interested in drugs. I sense many people would defect from the category if this merge occurred, so I favor deleting it. Since I don't want to fork the discussion, I'd like to wait on category: Wikipedians who oppose drugs for now.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in the American Telecommuting Association

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete due to only one person supporting keeping and past precedent of deleting categories without associated articles VegaDark 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article for American Telecommuting Association, so this category cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who live in Tinton Falls

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 7

[edit]

Category:Canadian Wikipedians born in Hong Kong

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians from Hong Kong. VegaDark 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese user categories, Part 2

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep Taiwan, no consensus for the other two. VegaDark 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two merges are pretty straightforward, and reflect reality. The only possibly contentious nomination is Category:Wikipedians in China, which I think should be deleted because both states claim to be the China, and giving it to either would just create a whole controversy that's been avoided on their respective Wikipedia article by adopting the official names. Its discussion page could be preserved so people will be less tempted to recreate it. Xiner (talk, email) 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 6

[edit]

Category:Chinese Wikipedians overseas

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Overseas Chinese Wikipedians. VegaDark 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt the impossible and try to straighten out the overpopulated and convoluted China-related user categories. This is the first nomination. It should be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from China. Can it be speedied? Xiner (talk, email) 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 4

[edit]

Wikipedians by alma mater

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. No good reason given not to rename. VegaDark 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency—see the categories at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: United States. --zenohockey 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miscellaneous delete nominations

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all but the last one, which will be merged. VegaDark 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All seem pretty spurious to me. If there’s any objection, though, I can break one or more of these out to a separate nomination.--Mike Selinker 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians interested in playing sports

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I was leaning toward rename but there were good points made to not rename some of these. In the future I recommend nominating these either individually for renaming, or if nominating for deletion the entire lot of categories in Wikipedians by sport. VegaDark 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these would match their counterparts under category:Sportspeople by sport.--Mike Selinker 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all, possibly speedy rename since this seems uncontroversial. VegaDark 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or rename if that's the consensus. I just realized that the most popular sport in the world doesn't have a similar category. I won't create one because it doesn't really help collaboration. Xiner (talk, email) 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I strongly disagree with the idea that the name of a category must indicate collaboration directly. I don't see any reason why Category:Wikipedians who play x (where "x" is equal to some sport) cannot be allowed to exist as named, in the same way that we have computer and video game players' categories. - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. I wouldn't get too literal here, or we have to rename EVERY category. That's just not worth it. I think we should either rename these to match the mainspace categories, or rename all the rest of the sports playing category to match the game categories as "Wikipedians who play X". Either is fine.--Mike Selinker 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming - Though each for different reasons (including my comments above). For example, I think that there is a difference between a roller skater, and someone who participates in Roller Derby. (Exception:Per current guidelines, rowers can be speedied.) - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of userboxes is distasteful to some, because they think Wikipedia is for encyclopedic work only. While I do not hold such a strong view, I do think that at the end of the day, WP:NOT a social site, etc. User categories such as these serve no purpose beyond advertising a person's personal likes/dislikes. I'm opne to changing my mind, of course. Xiner (talk, email) 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I believe I understand your concerns, I think the line being drawn is subjective, and we should be wary of too forcefully pushing Wikipedian categories over that line. I've personally been a proponent of collaborative uses for these categories. However, that's not their only use. And btw, while Wikipedia is assuredly not a social networking site, Wikipedia also assuredly has a community of Wikipedians. And supporting that community of encyclopedists does support the encyclopedia. And finally (smile), does anyone know a way to make the notice at the top of this page about this page not discussing userboxes sparkle in multicolours, in flashing lights? : ) - jc37 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The userspace is one thing, the category space is another. I don't think we should be using categories to classify people by likes, dislikes, or other such things that don't help build an encyclopedia, or at least help the community. I don't think "Wikipedians who play x" does either, So yes, I am advocating renaming almost every single user category (In the long run, that is...obviously I can see there will not be a consensus for this anytime soon so I'll stick to trying to make categories "better" rather than "perfect"). VegaDark 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roller derby is very, very different from roller skating. Renaming it as such would not be terribly accurate. Maybe Wikipedian roller derby players? Although, that would sound incredibly awkward to anybody who actually does play roller derby. Either way, I've found these kind of categories useful to find specific people to run edits by, in much the same way that any of the geographical or talent categories are useful. --Marumari 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as serving no purpose for collaboration on an encyclopedia. If you wish to contribute in a field in which you are involved or interested, join or start a Wikipedia Project. Categories are the New Userbox - how to list a lot of people's random interests and affiliations, facilitating a club mentality. If you want to mention your interests and affiliations on your userpage, do so - but there is no useful purpose to these sports categories, any more than there is to food categories. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

CVU

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all into Category:Wikipedians in the Counter Vandalism Unit. I could use some help moving all the members, since there are a lot. VegaDark 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians on Eincyclopedia to Category:Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. VegaDark 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Eincyclopedia is, but it redirects to Uncyclopedia so we should probably do the same and merge the two. VegaDark 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use Lyriki

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyriki, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 09:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use Fur Affinity

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fur Affinity, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use FAQ Farm

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article on FAQ Farm, so this category does not facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use BigFooty

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigFooty, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use the Chaos Chambers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. VegaDark 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Chambers, resulting in delete. No article means no need for a category, since it cannot facilitate collaboration. VegaDark 08:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Empty categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Unless we have evidence of vandalism, an empty category can be deleted without discussion.--Mike Selinker 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All empty. I tagged them all as speedy but they were all declined by the reviewing admin saying "take them to CFD", apparently due to concerns of the possibility someone removed pages from all of these categories with the intent of getting these categories deleted. I see no merit to this claim, but here I am anyway. As I still feel these qualify as speedy deletions, I am listing them here. Speedy delete all as nominator. VegaDark 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Delete all if vandalism is not involved (how'd we check that anyway?). Xiner (talk, email) 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Wikipedians who believe West Virginia is in the Southern United States

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and salt.--Mike Selinker 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation. See Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedians that believe West Virginia is in the South. Please note message on the talk page first.--Mike Selinker 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 3

[edit]

Political compass categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. I didn't want to have to close this since it was contested and I was involved, but it looks like there is a clear majority of people who think it should be deleted, and nobody else wants to close it. VegaDark 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Economic Neutral Wikipedians, Category:Economic Left Wikipedians, Category:Economic Right Wikipedians, Category:Social Authoritarian Wikipedians, Category:Social Libertarian Wikipedians, and Category:Social Neutral Wikipedians already. All these other ones are just combinations of these and is unhelpful overcategorization. VegaDark 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 2

[edit]

Category:Wikipedian mathematicians/math-0

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox that populates this category states This user does not understand mathematics, or does not want to do math. - Very definition of a "not" category, does not facilitate collaboration or help encyclopedia building in any way. VegaDark 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. VegaDark 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want one for every subject. Xiner (talk, email) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I think the second half of the criteria should be removed. Mathematics is a language, and unless we intend to remove all the other zero-level language cats, we should retain this one. - jc37 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I do intend on nominating all the 0-level language categories, except for the English one. The English one is the only useful one for for the english version of Wikipedia, since that is the only language that is expected for people to know, it is helpful to know if someone doesn't speak English. I was going through these and there are many language categories that don't even have the 0-level, so I don't suspect it will be nearly as many as there are languages. VegaDark 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant to wikipedia.Tellyaddict 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned above, a zero-level rating in anything but English conveys esseentially no useful information. The lack of a userbox at level 1 or higher is, by default, an indication of a zero-level understanding, except for English. (It's a default enough in the sense that there isn't any point in querying users, say, with no math userbox, to determine if by chance they do have math knowledge). (Consider the user who fills his/her userpage with userboxes showing zero-level knowledge of, say, 100+ foreign languages - totally useless.) -- John Broughton (☎☎) 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular one, but I have to disagree with John Broughton and VegaDark and oppose deletion for any languages where you could live in a country, but not understand the language (as in my case for Japanese, see my user page). In that case, that IS useful information. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, per Vega, I would very much like to see those 0-level categories bite the dust.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: The suggestion for deletion is that this zero-level category is like all other zero-level language categories on this, the english wikipedia, and as such, we should only keep the english zero-level category (and none of the other zero-level language categories) because only it (the en zero-level category) could be seen as useful here? By that premise, how could we possibly say that having a zero-level in mathematics would not be useful similarly, and for similar reasons? - jc37 13:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the only thing that is presumed known by all users on en.wikipedia is that they know English, so when we leave messages on their talk page we know they will be able to understand them. It doesn't help to categorize people who don't know how do to math, if for some reason we need to know that they will be able to communicate that, unlike with not being able to speak English. I can possibly see creating a category titled Category:Wikipedians who don't understand the native language of the country they reside in to satisfy Cjewell's point, but we don't need one for each individual language. And that would be under the assumption that we are all automatically assuming that since he lives in Japan he knows Japanese, which I'm not so sure is the case. VegaDark 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Born in" categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all VegaDark 21:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia to Category:Wikipedians from Czechoslovakia
Category:Wikipedians born in Glasgow to Category:Wikipedians from Glasgow
Category:Wikipedians born in Iowa to Category:Wikipedians from Iowa
Category:Wikipedians born in Texas to Category:Wikipedians from Texas

These are the only "Wikipedians born in location" categories and there are a lot more "Wikipedians from" categories, we need a standard naming convention for these. VegaDark 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all as nominator. VegaDark 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. This was a (bad) compromise because the Texans went ballistic when we tried to streamline everything last time (late August/early September--can't find the nomination). I would like every category in this format ("Wikipedians in", "Wikipedians born in", etc.) to be relabeled "Wikipedians from" so we don't have to care at what point in a person's life they claim residence in a place. But that's a lot of work.--Mike Selinker 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw those and I figured it would be best to narrow down the 3 groups to only 2 groups before we undertake that issue, but I agree with that for the long run. Baby steps Mike, baby steps... VegaDark 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, dude, back then we were trying to fight to keep the category named "Wikipedians from Texas"! That's what the category was originally called. So if you want to change "born in" back to "from", hey, you won't hear any arguments from any of us. We were mainly concerned about the concept of changing "from" to "in", which is a whole other kettle of fish. "From" implies that one was either born in or raised in [x], where [x] == a specific location. "In" just means that one happens to reside in [x], which does not sit well at all with those of us who are native Texans. So thumbs up to VegaDark for getting the category back to the name we were all happy with. (Krushsister 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • (laughs) I guess we sorta did a number on you back then, didn't we?  ;) But you just can't keep a native Texan down! Everything's bigger down here, including our personalities! We can't help it, it's a survival thing. Anyway, mea culpa once more and a reiteration of my approval for this category renaming. (Krushsister 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 1

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who display their number of edits

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it is helpful to know who displays their edit count or not. Note that this is different from Category:Wikipedians by number of edits. VegaDark 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/February_2007&oldid=1088533444"