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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Capuchin alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Christian Brother (Irish) alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Christian Brother alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Marist Brother alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Salesian alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Arab Canadian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

Possibly Iraqi Canadian, with 10 blue links to people.

Possibly Syrian Canadian.

Creation of notable red links.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in Natural Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Singularitarian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians with academic publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Mitch Hedberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedian Devon Werkheiser fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 11:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not useful to Wikipedia. Rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds -- Ralph Waldo Emerson ... but if you insist, rename it, don't delete, seems useful to me (I'd be in it if I weren't in the corresponding admin category). ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, use of term admin and placement in category structure is enough to cover guidance on naming conventions. Also, when did it become common practise for nominator to iterate their position twice? I wouldn't want to see debates become weighted as people constantly reiterate their position. Hiding T 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't Category:Eguor admins. You may have confused the two categories. Also, in CfD, these are "discussions", not keep/delete debates. As a result, it's not always clear what the intent of the nominator is. - jc37 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken re the category. Still think it's clear enough, but I won't let the door hit me on the arse on the way out. Any nominator who can't make their intentions clear in their nomination would worry me, to be honest. Like I say, I wouldn't want anything to get confused because a position has been iterated twice, which certainly seems to have happened here. I mean, you have said Rename twice, haven't you? I'm just wondering how you didn't think that was clear first time around. I don't get what the fact that this is UCFD has to do with anything. Either you were clear in your first iteration and don't need to clarify, or you weren't clear in your first iteration and, this being a wiki, you shoulod just edit that first iteration for clarity. Hiding T 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, no closer should ever count bolded text in determining consensus. So it shouldn't matter if I said Rename 50 times. That said, it can be considered confusing if such is done throughout a discussion, and so further comments are typically done as Comment, rather than reiterating rename. As for why I did it above, and typically do so in all CfD/UCfD nominations, I've already explained above. - jc37 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you didn't actually explain why you did it. You said it's not always clear what the intent is. I'm not sure how it is not clear what you're intent was. Are you suggesting people don't read the nomination? Hiding T 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, maybe there's value in keeping this to editors. I don't know what the scope of the cat is, but I assume it is to mirror Eguor admins but be for those who aren't admins. If you rename this then it gets muddy over what Eguor admins is for and maybe it is best to keep the two distinct and let individuals sort themselves as they wish rather than attempt to push a de facto category. Don't agree with the deletion opinion,s this seems to follow in the tradition of the long established philosophy cats which the wider community find of use. For the record, 4 users are categorised here, category created 24 June 2007, and it isn't userbox fed. Hiding T 17:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We're all Wikipedians here. And admiship should be "no big deal". Whether admins should have a sub-grouping within the broader grouping of Wikipedians, can be discussed/nominated, I suppose, or not, at "editorial" discretion : ) - jc37 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's germane to the discussion, so I don't see any value in closing that avenue down. If tradition is that we categorise like this, then let's follow that tradition. Hiding T 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the sentiment, but don't think a category is needed for it. Per Vegadark, I'll be ok with a rename if there is no consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration and, moreover, that treats Wikipedias as a battleground: e.g. "loyal opposition", "Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I left a neutral message pointing Anyeverybody, the creator of this category, and Durova, the creator of the "Eguor admins" category, to this discussion. --Iamunknown 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to the community. Not quite a neutral comment here: I've received notification and want to acknowledge it. Thank you for informing me. Stepping back with a respectful nod to all editors here. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer also. Anynobody 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Category:Canadian Wikipedian Bloggers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians with pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Public domain minor edit license

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Admin criteria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Blenderhead Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Babylon 5 Fan Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:!Wikipedians in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians in quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedian Enviornmentalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Tanz-Metall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who does not tolerate harassment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who use LinkedIn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians with astigmatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who like Colossus: The Forbin Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who BOINC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

  (comment neutral to the nomination) - Per current XfD convention, page contributors/category members are not personally informed of a discussion. Tagging (the placement of the apparopriate XfD template) is considered enough. - jc37 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rename per naming conventions. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - A fairly mundane change. Let's strive for consistency. The major opposition seems to be "Let's keep everything the way it is for no reason whatsoever just cause", which is silly on a wiki. TheBilly (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I should note that it's not an issue of "Let's keep everything the way it is for no reason whatsoever just cause," but category renaming is actually quite a pain in the butt to do, as it requires the assistance of bots and/or scripts, plus a slew of edits in order to do so. Moreover, in this specific case it would potentially affect functionality of a relatively broad scope bot, and could aggravate a bunch of users if done incorrectly. If it was a simple rename of some trivial userbox category, it's not as much of a big deal, because it's an aesthetic change. However, in this particular case it's a functional change (i.e., if something goes wrong with the rename, there actually are spillover effects). --slakr^\ talk / 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or Merge-n-delete to {{NoAutosign}}. Rename for consistency, with compliments for notifying me first. And, if we're already here, it might be an idea to simply deprecate this category all together (i.e., delete it) and instead replace all instances of it with {{NoAutosign}} (identical in function), which future-proofs against naming convention changes as it can be easily redirected if renamed without the tidal wave of category renaming edits :P. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Very Important Comment — I forgot to mention: if we take the {{NoAutosign}} route, be sure NOT to subst: the template, as it will break the backreference. Just leave it as "{{NoAutosign}}" (without the quotes and the nowikis). --slakr^\ talk / 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who are armed with all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge both (and probably recat?) to whatever target name concensus decides. - jc37 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wikipedians using a PGP Key . Useful for collaboration. Lurker (said · done) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What makes this software different than all the others? Couldn't this be "Wikipedians interested in computer cryptography" or something like it? —ScouterSig 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  PGP is used in communication, and would be useful for editors who wish to communicate with others using PGP- for example, people who have reason to believe their communication may be monitored (people living under oppressive regimes, say). Lurker (said · done) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that it's also being used by some on Wikipedia to help prevent identity/account theft. - jc37 15:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct. In one sense it's more robust than the hash, as the trust is created prior to any comprising of the account. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use PGP. Using a PGP key implies using PGP, but using PGP does not necessarily imply using a PGP key (although it almost always does). Alternatively, merge both to Category:Wikipedian using a PGP key as key should not be capitalized. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Wikipedians using a PGP key as per Lurker and Ben Hocking. (pluralization, capitalization) Horologium (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use OpenPGP encryption. This covers both PGP and GPG, its open source replacement. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians against advertisements

Category:Wikipedians for optional advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Selectively rename to Category:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Dan Patrick Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The Dan Patrick Show went off the air on 17 August 2007. JB82^c 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Electric folk[edit]

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

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

Category:Wikipedians who listen to Thrash metal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Christian Brothers College High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Public domain licensing

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

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

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

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

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

Category:User ja-ksb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in the subject of Chinese reunification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Christian Anarchist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Williamsville East High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose renaming:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Kolmogorovian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 2

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 3

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 4

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 5

Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 6

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

• Delete all as nom, merge all if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify all to their appropriate sections in Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number, in case any users in the category are missing from the list. A list affords editors the opportunity to provide details that they could not give in a category. Moreover, grouping editors by Erdős number doesn't really foster encyclopedic collaboration, and I agree that these are essentially achievement categories, which are discouraged. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list makes for better reading anyway. –Pomte 09:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge individual number categories into a single category, perhaps Category:Wikipepdians interested in Erdős numbers, which is more-or-less encyclopedic (after listifying). (but not my COI) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does having an Erdős number of 6 or less translate into an interest in subject of Erdős numbers? As far as I know, Erdős numbers only indicate collaborative distance from Paul Erdős, not a specific subject expertise or interest. Is there another factor at work of which I'm not aware? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Ugh. —ScouterSig 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all not useful for collaboration, not verifiable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, actually most, if not all, Wikipedian categories are not verifiable. But I suppose that it does make the point that perhaps some things should require verifiability. I dunno. - jc37 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closer - This is just in case it may be accidentally missed : ) - Several of the above commenters suggest/agree with merging to the list (even those in support of deletion). - jc37 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]