This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template:Cfdu-header

January 20

Category:Sandbox

Category:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I don't see how this could possibly be needed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesn't really help collaboration. People should be using either the Wikipedia sandbox or their own, not looking for other people's to use. - Koweja (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

Category:Wikipedians who curse

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

Can't think of how it would be helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What a fuckin' useless category. It's a piece of shit. Delete. DS (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unhelpful Orderinchaos 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Sniperz11^talk|edits 20:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It does no harm, it's well within the rules and it brings a little light entertainment to an otherwise miserable bunch of &**#£&%*s. --WebHamster 21:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And doesn't everyone curse?  :) Anyway... I can't think of any collaborative use for this. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:36, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as useless, although I would include myself into Category:Wikipedians who believe that civility is overrated. User:Dorftrottel 19:08, January 20, 2008
• Delete per nom. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves to purpose. - Koweja (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Trout categories

• Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisting per Hiding's closing statement. I propose that these categories be renamed to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout whacking and Category:Wikipedians open to trout whacking, respectively, in accordance with WP:TROUT and this discussion. :-) - ∅ (∅), 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "whacking", per nom. - jc37 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename second cat to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping, keep slapping over whacking on both. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Traditionally, the usage has been "whacking". See also WP:TROUT, which is the source of the category reference. - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Merge Both to "Wikipedians", not bothered about whacking v. slapping —Ashley Y 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh - the regular nominations of one or the other "trout" categories is becoming tiresome. And, considering that many previous editors have expressed interest in it, I suggest all the more that those editors be notified. Now, to address the nomination: It is true that, traditionally, the usage at WP:TROUT has been "whacking"; it is also true that, traditionally, the usage at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping and The Fish-Slapping Dance (most probably the inspiration for the original page) has been "slapping". Since no one has consulted with the people who actually use the category, I submit that the first category not be renamed and the second category be renamed to Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. --Iamunknown 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Traditionally"? The admin (the older of the two) has been around all of a month. WP:TROUT has been around for over a year (and I believe that the usage of "whacking with a wet trout" predates that page). And I don't think either form had an source in The Fish-Slapping Dance. According to one admin, the word "slap" may have come from an IRC command. - jc37 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you asked the opinion of editors and admins who use the categories? --Iamunknown 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I suppose (since we're being technical), we should note that "trout slapping" or "trout whacking" isn't clear if one is doing harm to the trout, or if the trout is doing the harm. Also, there is nothing about being whacked with a trout which is specific to adminship. Therefore... - jc37 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Wikipedians open to being whacked with a wet trout, per Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout. (Though my first preference is still to delete as a potentially all-inclusive category.) - jc37 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Wikipedians open to.... WODUP 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them both and stop the nonsense. What purpose does this category serve? The most this category does is group editors who are willing to have a image of a trout on their talk page with the caption "Whack!" under it. If for whatever reason you keep the nonsense, merge the two categories and keep the crap to a minimum. — Save_Us † 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Rename to Wikipedians open to..., as there is no purpose served in this context to segregating the two. In re: Whacking versus Slapping, the thicker-sounding tonal qualities of a Whack (i.e. the proverbial "Wet Thud") have more depth than the sharp, higher pitched tone of a slap, and thus the Whack would appear to be superior for these purposes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian autograph pages

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

WP:NOT#SOCIAL. The old claim that such things should be tolerated as facilitating colloaboration and a positive community spirit are discredited e.g. by the fact that only a tiny minority wants them, and also by the verifiable fact that too many users included there also display a liking for fancy signatures rather than e.g. encyclopedic standards. User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

• Delete category as it has nothing to do with collaboration. That said, it seems like you, Dorftrottel, are trying to get all of the autograph pages themselves deleted, rather than just the category. If that is the case, you need to nominate them at WP:MFD instead of here. Your reasoning probably won't be good enough as fancy signatures and things only used by a minority are acceptable. - Koweja (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're partially right in that I'm generally opposed to the use of Wikipedia for socialisation that has nothing to do with creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. I probably wouldn't go so far as to put any such subpages up for deletion though. Deleting the category is sufficient to prevent the wrong impression that WP:NOT#SOCIAL doesn't matter anymore, and to clearly state that user categories even more than subpages in userspace should only exist to ease and facilitate collaboration. User:Dorftrottel 21:51, January 17, 2008
• Weak keep - Noting that even User:Jimbo Wales has been known to sign such pages. As such, it's probably fair to keep the category for nav purposes. See also: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/May 2007#Category:Wikipedian Autograph Pages. - jc37 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, yeah, Jimbo. I don't want to say that I sometimes doubt his good judgment, but as a matter of fact I do. User:Dorftrottel 21:42, January 17, 2008

  Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books, which also had a Deletion review. (Scroll down the page to find it.) - jc37 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A major argument in the MfD was that the autograph pages themselves are in userspace. But having a category is another thing entirely. User:Dorftrottel 22:23, January 17, 2008

• Keep as tracking category so the next time someone decides to nominate the pages, they can find most of them. This is ironically the non-mainspace collaborative purpose. Nom has not discredited its supposed advantage of bringing about a positive community spirit, as the interest in encyclopedic standards is not a necessary condition for this spirit. The fact that only a tiny minority wants them is positive, whereas deletion would be negative towards their purpose while they still exist. –Pomte 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting reasoning, similar to what you said at the last nomination. Do you suggest deletion of those user subpages? I don't particularly mind them and would probably never nominate such a page myself, and they would probably not be deleted anyway judging by the Autograph books MfD from last year. In my opinion, as long as they stay out of any serious encyclopedic area, people can have them. User:Dorftrottel 04:14, January 18, 2008
    • So if the pages are kept, then they supposedly serve some purpose, and WP:NOT#SOCIAL, by lack of consensus, doesn't apply to them as a whole, so a grouping of them should inherit this property. And if the MfD folk become aware of this, there'll be lots more keep votes here for the same reason. Category:Wikipedians appears to not be a serious encyclopedic area (any time there's wider community input on user categories, that's what they seem to say). It's odd how much time is spent interlinking these pages. The easiest way to prevent people from doing this is to have a centralized category for navigation. –Pomte 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the category in and by itself specifically advances the use of Wikipedia for pure socialising. Per WP:NOT#SOCIAL, I'm admittedly not very fond of autograph pages, but having a user category for it should really be out of the question. What concerns me about your line of reasoning is that you IMHO appear to be trying to sound neutral in your assessment when you're actually in favour of discarding WP:NOT#SOCIAL as a general understanding among Wikipedians.
        "there'll be lots more keep votes" — This is not a vote, or so I hope. People arriving in force to keep their favourite aspect of Wikipedia from being properly deleted must be ignored unless they present valid arguments. Number should play no role. If a majority thinks WP:NOT#SOCIAL should be discarded, that's still a bad idea. That's the one single notion behind consensus-building. Present arguments, or don't post at all. Personal liking that has nothing to do with building and maintaining an encylopedic project can play no part in determining consensus.
        The matter of fact is that this category justifies questionable habits, serves no collaborative purpose, and should therefore be deleted fully independent from any user subpage MfD.
        "The easiest way to prevent people from doing this is to have a centralized category for navigation." — Be honest: have you ever made use of this category for that purpose? User:Dorftrottel 19:42, January 18, 2008
        • I don't see how signing a page is socializing or advances pure socializing. Typing a short message and four tildes is not directly a way to make friends or find people with similar interests. About the "advancing" part, the community still can and has deleted more improper uses of the user namespace.
        • Literally, there's nothing in NOT#SOCIAL about this. Whether autograph pages are "relevant to working on the encyclopedia" is as debatable as the case for userboxes, userpage bios, secret userpages, wikilove, smiles, user categories, etc. I'm not a sociologist and don't see evidence either way. Here's a hypothesis: When one's own autograph page receives signatures, one's encyclopedic spirit rises in turn increasing motivation, dedication, etc; signing another's autograph page is a way to keep cool from wikistress during a content dispute elsewhere. This is as convincing as your claim that "only a tiny minority wants them", which isn't backed up here.
        • If you think this category justifies questionable habits, get those habits deleted at source. You imply that fancy signatures are also questionable, and I would agree with you, except many prolific editors have ridiculous signatures as well, and some sign autograph pages.
        • Where NOT#SOCIAL says "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration," this is tricky again because having an autograph page as one of one's many user subpages doesn't make one's focus to be on social networking. An autograph page is certainly not by itself a foundation for effective collaboration, but it can be one of many factors in contributing to effective collaboration overall throughout the encyclopedia.
        • ILIKEIT keep !votes should certainly be ignored, but unfortunately that doesn't happen with some pages outside mainspace. It becomes a vote.
        • No, I haven't used this category for any purpose because I have no interest in autograph pages. But I have just used it to address the issue. –Pomte 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just a General reminder to editors, please note that the discussion is about the Category and not user autograph pages themselves.
  
  I created this category since I thought it would be a good idea to bring together all the wikipedians with such pages, since such a concept facilitates collaboration and better communication between wikipedia editors. For one, many pages could do with more experienced editors taking a look and improving that. And anyone who has created or tried to build a page knows how difficult that is. This offers one way of actually getting in more people and collaborating. The category helps by bringing together experience and channeling it.
  
  Wikipedia:NOT#SOCIALNET points out that "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." I think that this category does exactly that. As to the argument that its not effective in collaboration, I think we should not judge that so soon. Everything on wikipedia takes time to gain momentum, and coming to a decision about this less than 2 months after creation would be difficult. However, anything that brings together experienced editors is something that should be kept.
  
  The disadvantage is probably that it makes it easier for spamming, but I'd think that that is a minor irritant when looking at the obvious advantages of getting more people in touch. Plus, you need to discover an autograph page first to discover the category.
  
  Cheers,
  Sniperz11^talk|edits 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facilitates collaboration? How? VegaDark (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "anything that brings together experienced editors is something that should be kept" — With all due respect, I don't see too many exceptionally experienced users in the category.
      "I think that this category does exactly that." — You're not stating what it is that makes you think so.
      "obvious advantages of getting more people in touch" — User categories should serve a purpose beyond simply "getting more people in touch", that's the very point of WP:NOT#SOCIAL. User:Dorftrottel 05:08, January 18, 2008
      • True, Dorftrottel. Right now, If I remember correctly, there are only around 30,000 regular editors (more than 100 edits a month) to wikipedia (out of 6 million registered users). Now, for over 2 million pages, thats a very small number of experienced editors. Your point about exceptionally experienced editors is not true. True, most users in the category have not gone beyond 1000 mainspace edits, but quite a few are very close. If we can get these users talking and discussing wikipedia, I think something can be accomplished.
        
        Whats more, far too many important pages lack experienced editors who can actually add substantial material. You may argue that there are other ways of getting help, but most of the time, the assistance is only with formatting and correcting grammer and organization; which is fine, but not very useful in improving start pages. In such cases, such communities surely help, since most editors who have their autograph subpages are experienced and regular editors to boot.
        
        User categories should serve a purpose beyond simply "getting more people in touch", that's the very point of WP:NOT#SOCIAL. Agreed, and true. Thats exactly what I referred to with spamming- simply saying hi isn't what this is for, and it shouldn't be encouraged. But when regular editors talk, it rarely goes beyond discussing wikipedia itself. Anything that brings these opinions together should, in my opinion, be encouraged. Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "If we can get these users talking and discussing wikipedia" — Wikipedia offers a great infrastructure to help people learn the ropes (e.g. the pages linked to from {{Welcome}} which can be found on virtually all new user talk pages) and provides the proper venues to discuss each and any aspect of it (e.g. WP:VP), seek help (e.g. WP:HD), or ask all sorts of questions related to editing (e.g. WP:EA). If you feel any link of extraordinary importance and helpfulness for new users is missing from the welcome template, just fix it.
          
          "You may argue that there are other ways of getting help " — Indeed, and all of them are better in that they are frequented by a far greater number of users, including many admins (there's only one single admin currently in the autograph category).
          
          "most of the time, the assistance is only with formatting and correcting grammer and organization" — Not true at all. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
          
          "improving start pages" — Start pages? Do you mean help with new articles? See e.g. Wikipedia:Your first article which provides useful information assembled by many users with extensive experience.
          
          "In such cases, such communities surely help" — Not to unnecessarily split hairs, but if you just assert this without providing any example, your point boils down to a mere assumption of yours.
          
          "most editors who have their autograph subpages are experienced and regular editors to boot." — We're discussing the category, and the majority of users included there is not very experienced. The fact that only one single admin has included himself is just one indicator of the truly unencyclopedic nature of this category. User:Dorftrottel 21:36, January 18, 2008
• Delete contrary to my usual position on this sort of matter, I think these do harm the image of the Encyclopedia. They indicate an excessive concern for the social aspects and do not help even the most informal cooperation. I have friends here too, and I remember who they are, and keep track of them through my watchlist, and chat with them on email. We certainly do want users, and new users in particular to get in touch with other editors, but this is done by cooperation on projects and building and discussing articles. DGG (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as long as these pages exist as a tracking category per Pomte. Ideally I'd like to see these deleted as well, but as long as they are here I think the category is useful to group them. An argument for deleting would be that grouping makes it easier for editors to find such pages, thus further encouraging time wasting as opposed to actual encylopedia work. Another argument would be that a category "legitimizes" such pages, possibly encouraging the creation of more. An argument for keeping is that it makes it easier to find the next time an MfD comes along for these. I think the benefits of keeping slightly outweigh the costs, since I'd like to see these MfD'd again some time in the future. Editors that want to waste time signing every autograph page may very well just spend even more time trying to find such pages if this category is deleted, as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Per Jimbo Wales:

  "You keep asking how they [autograph pages] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"

  --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 19:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not discussing the autograph pages themselves here, this is not WP:MfD. This discussion is only about the category, so your reasoning is not valid as an argument in this discussion. User:Dorftrottel 20:36, January 20, 2008
    • True, but the nom you made is talking about the pages themselves. From my POV autograph pages help make a friendly environment among editors, therefore helping with building an encyclopedia. If I was to leave my POV behind on the matter, I could see how some people can misuse these pages and use them for purely social matters, but these pages can help Wikipedians know each other better and therefore can help collaboration among editors. This category helps in that respect by allowing editors find places where they can put a friendly greeting down and ~~~~, it's not a place to chat or have a lengthy conversation about things unrelated to Wikipedia since most editors only put their sig down once with a friendly message. I don't see how this hurts Wikipedia in any way and that's why I voted keep. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, the point about Esperanza in that quote is ironic. –Pomte 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... How did that escape me? User:Dorftrottel 04:35, January 21, 2008

Category:Wikipedians by skill

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

• Category:Wikipedian amateur radio operators (delete)
• Category:Wikipedian climbers (delete or rename to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing members)
• (Category:Wikipedians by computer skill should be kept as useful and made a direct subcat of Category:Wikipedians, except for:)
  • Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors (delete)
• Category:Wikipedian cyclists (delete or merge into Category:WikiProject Cycling members)
  • Category:Wikipedian mountain bikers (delete, or at least upmerge into Category:Wikipedian cyclists)
• Category:Wikipedian divers is already included in Category:WikiProject Swimming, a seperate discussion may follow and should best be renamed to Category:WikiProject Swimming members, with the prospect to making it a subcategory thereof sometime later
• Category:Wikipedian paratroopers (delete)
• Category:Wikipedian podcasters (delete)
• Category:Wikipedian surfers (delete)
• Category:Wikipedian underwater divers should be merged into Category:WikiProject SCUBA members is now included in Category:WikiProject SCUBA, a seperate discussion may follow

• all other subcategories should be made subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by profession if not already

Redundant to Category:Wikipedians by profession, and more trivial and subjective at that. The only half-way plausible subcategory which should definitely be kept is Category:Wikipedian translators (subcat of Category:Wikipedia translation). The rest should either be deleted or, if not already, included in Category:Wikipedians by profession instead. [See detailed proposal above] User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 17, 2008

• Neutral note - If you wish to have any of the subcats modified as a result of this nomination (renamed/merged/deleted/whatever) then each must be tagged, else no action will be taken. - jc37 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I tried my best to sort this out. User:Dorftrottel 20:12, January 17, 2008
    • They should be tagged as {{cfd-user|Category:Wikipedians by skill}}. I did the first one as an example. Otherwise they do not link directly to this discussion. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I highly doubt any of these categories will be UpMerged to a WikiProject membership category, due to the possibility of miscategorisation. And you might think about splitting at least a couple off to their own nominations (such as what seems to be the intent to UpMerge the subcats of Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files to their parent). I've found that, unless you wish a result of No Consensus, it's usually better to split noms for clarity. Though you are welcome, of course, to do as you will, in the respect, and hope for the best. - jc37 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, going to split them then. This may take me a little while though. User:Dorftrottel 21:44, January 17, 2008
      •  Done User:Dorftrottel 02:26, January 18, 2008
• Keep/Neutral. If you're looking for someone who can help with preparing media for an article, Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors and Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files could be useful; keep them. For the rest, I am neutral, although I don't see any actual reason proposed for the deletions. Anomie⚔ 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input. As to reasons: The categories should be justified by a plausible function for the encyclopedia and should not be redundant with other categories. If you're looking for help with images, see WP:GL and Category:Graphic Lab (esp. its subcategory Category:Wikigraphist). I have taken Category:Wikipedians who edit audio files out of this discussion. It is underpopulated though and may merit a seperate discussion sometime later. User:Dorftrottel 02:45, January 18, 2008
• delete as long as those specified above are moved. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, maybe rename, maybe reparent, and merge a few. It seems inappropriate to relocate Category:Wikipedians by skill categories under Category:Wikipedians by profession, as members of those categories may not exercise that particular skill in a professional setting. It may be appropriate to multi-parent some of them; that can probably be best handled by people with a better familiarity with the subjects. Most of those could probably do well under Category:Wikipedians by interest.
  Specific responses... Category:Wikipedian amateur radio operators should definitely be kept, and by definition (and licensing requirements) would be totally inappropriate under Category:Wikipedians by profession. I do question the value of Category:Wikipedian podcasters; I see it as slightly narrower than the nonexistent and patently useless Category:Wikipedian bloggers. Maybe podcasting is still a sufficiently uncommon activity that the analogy fails, though. The two diving categories (Category:Wikipedian divers and Category:Wikipedian underwater divers) should probably be merged. We could probably conscript the members of Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors and merge that category with the above-mentioned Category:Wikigraphist, but it is probably best to just leave it as is. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not demonstrate how those categories you would prefer kept help with collaboration. Just for example, being an amateur radio operator is not a skill, it's a hobby. That's my basic contention: that the parent category is a total (and probably deliberate) misnomer: It should properly be called Category:Wikipedians by hobby, then the inherent inapproporiateness would become immediately apparent.
    Apart from the—in itself already deletion-justifying—fact that none of these categories contain any straightforwardly stated or plausibly construable interest in collaboration on a defined set of articles, the problem with hobbies is that they contain only very subjective assertions of some non-professional knowledge (as opposed to professional education/occupation). Thus, they're not useful for maintaining the encyclopedia and should be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 18:25, January 18, 2008
    • I fail to completely understand your confusion, but perhaps it may be useful for you to recognize that a skill is not the ability to perform a single task, but a collection of related abilities. One use for any Category:Wikipedians by skill category is the same as the primary use for most Category:Wikipedians by profession categories: find somebody who has knowledge of a particular area. For other possible uses, consult your own creativity. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The confusion is not mine. User:Dorftrottel 03:15, January 19, 2008
• Keep, I can see utility. If I'm looking for someone with knowledge of amateur radio I know where to look, don't I. I just navigate through the categories until I find the right grouping of users sharing information through the category structure to better facilitate improvement of the encyclopedia. Hiding T 19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How often have you made concrete use of that, within Category:Wikipedians by skill? Any specific example would be welcome, I'm eager to let myself be convinced. User:Dorftrottel 19:28, January 18, 2008
    • Can you show me where you have asked this question of all Wikipedians? Otherwise, I fail to understand why my experience is so valued above all others. Hiding T 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because you're posting it here as an argument? The question extends to anyone who may yet arrive to weigh in on the discussion. They would be asked the same question, so as to gauge the validity of that specific argument. You just happen to be the first to bring it up. If you have never used this category for any such purpose, the current sample would be: zero of one people who state this rationale to keep can underscore its validity by presenting a single example for it. User:Dorftrottel 20:58, January 18, 2008
        • Sorry, I'm not clear on how your question impacts on the validity of my argument. Are you suggesting that this category does not make it easier to find people with knowledge of amateur radio? Hiding T 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certainly it does make it easier. I just don't see it happening in reality, esp. not for collaborative purposes. And since there's no declaration of interest in contributing to related articles, the category appears like pure vanity to me. I prefer arguments backed up by evidence. In this discussion, the burden of evidence actually lies with the category, to prove its actual and everyday usefulness for the encyclopedia beyond mere assumptions of how it might be used. I wouldn't object to any such category if it contained a commitment to improve related articles, ideally as a WikiProject membership group, but if such a commitment were the reason for the existence of the category, something to that effect would be included already. User:Dorftrottel 22:06, January 18, 2008
            • The burden of proof lies with those seeking deletion, as can be seen through the fact that a consensus must be generated to do so, otherwise the item under discussion is kept. Hiding T 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I beg to differ. All Wikipedia pages should serve a collaborative purpose. If such purpose is not present, the default is they shouldn't exist. In my opinion, a reason to keep those categories has to be demonstrated by those wanting to keep them. Otherwise, we'd be stuck with an ever-increasing, unsurmountable status quo. Oh, wait... User:Dorftrottel 22:29, January 18, 2008
                • I can't see a speedy criteriion which states that any page which has no collaborative purpose should be deleted, which seems to indicate the opposite of what you state. I also hope you are not suggesting you are the arbiter of what is collaborative? As to the ever increasing insurmountable status quo, I am unclear. To my eye that appears an oxymoron, since something which increases cannot stay static. Hiding T 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The participants in this discussion are the arbiters for this specific case. The criterion I mentioned is not to be found at WP:CSD, try WP:ENC. And increasing status quo means that the number of bad things that cannot be abolished or changed due to vocal resistance lacking valid arguments is steadily increasing: More and more things are settling on a status quo and then cannot ever be changed again, that's what I meant. User:Dorftrottel 00:41, January 19, 2008
• Keep all, tho a few need renaming. DGG (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many differences between having a certain skill and having it be a profession. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ok, can we at least rename the parent cat to Category:Wikipedians by hobby as a more accurate name? User:Dorftrottel 05:44, January 19, 2008
• Keep all and considering renaming some individual categories, as with DGG. --Iamunknown 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motorcycle owners

January 16

Category:Gayass Wikipedians

The nomination is apparently far more controversial and divisive than the category could be; there appears to be no clear consensus to delete (although the argument is weighted that way) and I have no objection to the category being renamed "Gay Wikipedians" or "LGBT Wikipedians." ^Avruchtalk 15:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gayass Wikipedians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification

Per the arguments that led to the deletions of all the categories listed at that deletion debate, this category and related categories should also be deleted. ^Avruchtalk 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should go in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Also, please see See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Even if "gayass" has some secondary meaning I'm not aware of, it is a gratuitously offensive category name, the creator's assumed good faith notwithstanding, and attempts to categorise Wikipedians by labels few Wikipedians would apply to themselves. Of course, it might be that "gayass" is a grotesque misspelling of the Yiddish for "Gentile", but somehow I don't think so, and even then WP:NC(I) considerations would apply. Oh, and WP:SNOW. --7Kim (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Phenomenally flaming keep Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#New LGBT-related Wikipedia user category, and I am unanimous in that. ALLSTARecho 17:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your argument, exactly? That it's discussed on some Wikiproject page, therefore it should be kept? Friday (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my argument is that it was created in jest.. fun.. humor.. something much lacking around the whole "LGBT cats" discussions.. they've become so heated over the months, to downright nasty, that it was just an "lmao" suggestion by a user that Gayass Wikipedians should be created.. so I did it. ALLSTARecho 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one merry prankster to another, let me just observe to you that when you have to say "it was a joke", your joke has already hit the ground with a wet splat. Comedians understand that a joke that plays well in one room is not necessarily going to play well everywhere. In any case, I'll accept that the category was a joke, and maybe even a good joke in limited contexts. Now that you've had your little joke, let it drop. Nothing kills a joke like beating on it too long, especially if it's already dead.

Frankly, my basis for assuming good faith was exactly the scenario you give: that someone in the LGBT community had created it. As a member of that community, I got the joke and would have laughed loudly if the joke were shared in the family, so to speak. But in some ways the intent doesn't matter. Jokes are all about context. You took a joke out of the context in which it was funny and planted it in a context in which it was not funny, like telling a surfing joke in North Dakota ... so it fell to earth with a thud. Brush yourself off, comedian, like you were just warming up, and move on to other material.  :) --7Kim (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument for a Strong Keep is that this category is pure WP:POINT

However, you'll notice a Catch 22 involved in this category and its predecessors Category:Queer Wikipedians and Category:LGBT Wikipedians. For some reason *these* categories are deleted while other categories based on self-selection are allowed.

Now, the argument goes, WP:OTHERSTUFF is no reason to keep a category.

But then look at the discussion for Cat:American Wikipedians where the category will most likely be kept due to WP:HARMLESS.

There's a double standard and it's time it got ironed out. It seems as though the sexuality categories have been / are singled out while other self-selection user criteria are not. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, however, there is a specific issue surrounding the adjectival intensifying particle "-ass". I have no objection to Category:Queer Wikipedians or Category:Gay Wikipedians so long as the word "queer" or "gay" gets a coherent definition and the cat has good inclusion criteria, but I would have the same argument against Category:Queerass Wikipedians that I have against Category:Gayass Wikipedians. How many people would describe themselves as "gayass", "queerass", "lesbianass", or "transass"? The presence of that particle "-ass" renders the label offensive and pejorative. I accept that there was ironic intent behind it, but the vast majority of those consulting and editing Wikipedia are not in on the joke and don't necessarily understand the ironic intent. --7Kim (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am gay and I like ass, so that makes me gayass, no? lol ALLSTARecho 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How very relevant. - ∅ (∅), 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:POINT, but the point is well taken. The categories Category:LGBT Wikipedians, etc. were deleted out-of-process. Fireplace (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looks pointy to me. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Potentially inflammitory name (no pun intended) if nothing else. I probably would have speedied this category as vandalism if I didn't realize it had been created in good faith.VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire and optionally brimstone too in the name of common sense and decency - ∅ (∅), 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV much? ALLSTARecho 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV? Surely you're not claiming that LGBT people are exempt from the requirements of common sense and decency? We don't have Category:Nigger Wikipedians for black people, either, do we? And even if we did, being created by a black person would not make it any less offensive! - ∅ (∅), 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the people saying keep. "it's a joke" and "it was created to make a point" are reasons to delete things, not keep them. - Koweja (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a poor attempt at humor.DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A reasonable use of humor to point out a badly handled situation, which actually does make it related to policy discussion, and Wikipedia. I'm straight myself, but am tempted to add the related userbox to my own userpage. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Satyr's argument that it is harmless and being held to a double standard (when I first recruited for WP:LGBT, Gay Wikipedians was my first port of call, so it was a useful category). But I would like to register my phenomenal annoyance that I can to add this category to my own page due to it not representing my own "assness". Biphobia is soooo gay. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the imputation of a double standard for for LGBT issues: Looking over the rest of the referenced UCfD page, I see that a very large number of categories of the form "(blank) Wikipedians" were up for discussion at that time, on lines ranging from LGBT identity to philosophy. Transhumanist, Cynical, Structural Realist, Marxist, Feminist, Nudist, Objectivist, Demoscener, Depressive, and many other types of Wikipedians saw their categories up for discussion, and by reading the page, there were very, very few results to keep; nearly all such categories of this nature that survived (and there weren't many) survived on no consensus. I infer from this that the sexual-identity categories were not, as has been implied by some editors here, deleted out of a spirit of antipathy or double standard toward LGBT people, but because a wave of nominations of identity-based categories landed in a UCfD then populated heavily by editors inclined to delete identity-based categories in general. The general consensus in UCfD may be a strict (perhaps overly strict) interpretation of WP:NOT#SOCIAL, but I don't think that that principle is being selectively enforced against LGBT people. Anyone who follows UCfD will have noticed that there are often waves of certain kinds of nominations, and certain kinds of arguments seem to dominate for a couple of weeks and then fade. --7Kim (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As an addendum to this comment, I quote the admin who closed the debate on Category:LGBT Wikipedians, as food for thought:

  The result of the debate was delete. While those who count votes may point to the numbers here, I have closed this as delete based on strength of the arguments and precedent at the cited DRV. The majority of the persons in favor of keeping this category actually help the opposite cause by 1) making claims of bias against those favoring deletion, turning this into a social issue of identification rather than one of collaboration and 2) making depreciated arguments of WP:ILIKEIT in favor of social networking. After Midnight 0001 04:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  I personally do not agree with the decision to delete these categories, but facts is facts and consensus is consensus and it is important to understand and deal with the very real arguments that were made rather than relying on the comfortable illusion that those who do not give you what you want are simply biased. There is probably a way to restore the LGBT usercats, but crying bias is the best possible way to ensure that they will never be restored. --7Kim (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what "rubbed the salt in the wound" regarding all these "gay" usercats was that they were all UCfD/slaughtered during National Coming Out Week, some of those cats having been in place for 2 years with no problems but all of a sudden, during a national observance of gay pride, thrown to the wolves for devour... ALLSTAR ^echo 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I share the feeling, but this discussion should be continued elsewhere. Arguments from feelings have very limited utility in UCfD. --7Kim (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another phenomenally flaming keep . . . although you should ignore anything I write because this is my last WP edit before I sign off on my user page and delete all but one of the messages on my talk page, asking that no further messages be left there. So don't bother reading this. And don't bother replying because I won't be here.
  • Why am I leaving WP? . . . A major reason is the fact that you're even having this discussion at all -- about a category for we LGBT people to define ourselves as such. Some of you speak here in a rational tone of voice and even feel aggrieved and saddened that LGBT's are getting emotional and accusing others of bias. But -- if you possibly can -- try to step back and get some perspective. Do you really imagine that it's okay for the majority to vote on -- or attempt to reach consensus on -- whether a minority that's persecuted in society should be allowed to identify themselves as such? Where exactly do you get your nerve?
  • Why is it relevant to WP collaboration to have a category for LGBT Wikipedians? . . . Because it's inherent in the nature of LGBT oppression in society that we're asked to hide. It's fundamental to the mechanism: the majority in society thinks it's okay to persecute, discriminate against, or even jail LGBTs because they're comfortable with the idea that we're a small advocacy fringe with an antisocial agenda. Meanwhile, the truth is that we're a relatively large minority (probably between 6 and 10%) that routinely goes about our business participating in and making contributions to society, just like everyone else. Except we're pressured to be invisible -- so our daily lives don't count like everyone else's -- and therefore it's okay to dismiss us. . . . And now, you at Wikipedia, by denying us a category, are explicitly requiring us to do the same -- and to cooperate in the very mechanism that oppresses us. You're perfectly happy to accept the contributions our expertise and work can make to ten thousand topics on WP, but you won't let us identify ourselves (even within the basic anonymity and collaborativeness of WP editing) as LGBT and so create even very limited recognition noticing that we're citizens here too. And how, exactly is that supposed to affect our morale? Are we supposed to feel happy in our work? Is it supposed to be "collaborative" when we LGBTs know that we're second-class, only here on condition that we don't break our pretense of "normality."
  • Why are we insisting now on the insulting, derogatory term, "gayass?" . . . The simple answer is that we tried nicely to get several polite synonyms recognized -- and you turned us down on all of them. Society already makes us feel like a bunch of "faggots," "dykes," and "gayasses," so our best hope in the face of the politely phrased, legalistic insult that WP has offered us is to turn around a less polite term for the same attitude and wear it as a badge of pride. Any questions?
  • Am I leaving WP solely because it won't recognize the contributions of LBGTs as such? . . . Well, I do think that would be a good reason by itself. Why should I work as a volunteer in a place where I'm unmentionable? . . . But, actually, I think that this "debate" is symptomatic of my larger disappointment with WP. The process and rules and policies have run away with it -- the vast majority of topics here are nearly unpopulated with editors, while most of the discussions I've happened on (including this one) are obsessively legalistic and lacking in perspective and common sense. This system allows editors with agendas to act arbitrarily while seeming to quote the rules. A good example is the very editor Avruchtalk who is responsible for nominating Category:Gayass Wikipedians for deletion. Coincidentally, he happens, as the result of a different discussion, to also be immediately responsible for my decision to leave.
  • Aren't I supposed to assume good faith? . . . Yes. That's precisely the problem. If I were to stay here, then assuming good faith would have to be a cornerstone. But, I just can't do that. A lot of you do have good faith. But too many of you, like Avruchtalk, have faith only in their own wishes, opinions, and dogma -- and are perfectly willing to game the system to get their way. I have too much evidence to the contrary to be able to make other people's good faith an automatic assumption -- and I refuse to work in that atmosphere. I have too many other non-WP projects where I can be constructive and effective.
  • Am I being insulting? . . . Perhaps. . . . But I don't think I created this situation. I came to WP with the best hope in the world of being a civic-minded member of the community and making a constructive contribution.
  • Will Avruchtalk -- or someone else -- unilaterally decide (as he did last night in a different discussion) that my comments here are too long and (according to his private interpretation) too off-topic, and therefore need to be deleted, archived, or moved to someplace safely irrelevant? . . . Very possibly.
  • William P. Coleman (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly resent the many posts by Coleman around Wikipedia today that imply that I am biased, bigoted, anti-gay, homophobic or whatever else. I am simply not, and in fact I believe my personal opinions on the subject have no place here. I'm disappointed that no one has taken a moment to address the fact that Coleman has blamed the ills of gay Wikipedians on me, in any forum where he has expressed this opinion. My nomination of the Gayass Wikipedian nomination has nothing to do with what I think of people who are gay and everything to do with whether I think such a category or similar categories (whether relating to LGBT or otherwise) has a place in Wikipedia. And before you ask, no I haven't nominated other categories for deletion - I have the LGBT WikiProject page watchlisted, and happened to note the discussion there of the new category. ^Avruchtalk 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • While, emotionally, I understand this editor's feelings, I want to point out that by arguing in this way he is playing directly into the hands of the attitude exemplified by After Dark's commentary quoted above. If we have such a powerful desire to retrieve categories like Category:Gay Wikipedians, this is 100% the wrong way to argue. (Or, perhaps, are we more interested in playing the martyr role? Victory is the last thing martyrs want.) One effective, but self-centered and shortsighted, way to do it is to study the arguments used to delete them and find a way to beat those arguments; an even better way, but much slower (and it benefits everybody, not just sexual minorities), is to address the real problem: the current consensus in UCfD on a distorted and hardline interpretation of, for example, WP:NOT#SOCIAL. (I suggest that everyone follow that link and read what's there, then compare what's there to how it keeps getting used here. There's where the real problem lies.) Consensus has been against us, but consensus can change, and with careful work that change can be directed. Like it or not, emotional arguments on this subject go nowhere in UCfD, precisely because we have burned them out. How many times are we going to try the same thing expecting a different result? Until the call is sounded to salt the categories because the endless arguing is just too disruptive? --7Kim (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as disruptive; restore the same-sex userboxes and categories. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The point of a category is for people to find things relating to the one topic. Why would anyone want to go around finding out who's gay and who's not? Of course, that userbox is fine but there's no need for a category.--Phoenix-wiki 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predicate question: Why would anyone want to go around finding out who's homeschooled, a Mac user, or an objectivist? The assertion that user-group categories are "to find things related to the topic" is not at all supported by the commonly accepted usage of user groups. - Revolving Bugbear 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per William P. Coleman's lucid arguments. Jeffpw (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion is a huge waste of time, and everyone should agree to let the issue go after it closes. While William P. Coleman's social commentary has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of user categories, it does suggest that we're better off in the long run renaming all user categories to "Wikipedians interested in collaborating on articles related to..." (except for language proficiency and any other obvious exceptions) to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. –Pomte 23:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not keep, but change the title to Gay Wikipedians if someone claims to be offended? Sf46 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vandal-magnet; potential privacy issues; profanity in title. DrKiernan (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DrKiernan. Seems like the kind of thing that would be used more to vandalize an opponent's userspace than something that homosexual users would actually want to post. Plus the usual arguments about non-collaborative or useful, yadda yadda... Equazcion •✗/C • 09:12, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)
• Delete' "gayass" cannot be assimilated by the community it was created to insult. It's juvenile and intended to hurt and dismiss alternate viewpoints. JuJube (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the decision made at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification. Category is needlessly inflammatory. — Save_Us † 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everything Ned Scott said above. Also, how can this be offensive to the gay community when they themselves wish to keep this? We aren't here to tell others what to call themselves - that is a terrible judgemental habit. If you are going to oppose then at least do so using arguments that don't consist of "you can't call yourselves this". Maybe I'm just too Scandinavian and liberal to understand that attitude but to me it is far more offensive than the word "gayass". EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure all LGBT Wikipedians would happily liked to be called a gayass. Not being offensive to one person doesn't mean that another could be offended by it, and I know there are editors here who would identify was LGBT who would most certianly not like being included in that category. — Save_Us † 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But who are Wikipedia to tell those that the category is quite clearly intended for what to call themselves? It doesn't simply say "LGBT Wikipedians" on the category page. It's a little more specific than that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians in x prefecture

See Wikipedians in x prefecture for the category list. Note that it's just that section, the other sections are part of the in/of/from nomination directly below.

Should it be Wikipedians in the x prefecture? - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure, hence the nomination for separate discussion. - jc37 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created these categories so I'll answer: No, it shouldn't be in the x prefecture. There's no logical reason behind it, but the fact is that English speakers living in Japan always say (for example) "I live in x prefecture", not "I live in the x prefecture", so this same wording should apply to the category names. Sorry if there's any confusion. Manmaru (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, 'the' is normally not used here. A 'google test' gives 70k hits for 'in Aichi prefecture' versus 5k hits for 'in the Aichi prefecture' (I chose a random prefecture for testing). Arthena^(talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Manmaru and Arthena that "the" is unconventional. One would not write "in the Kansas state." If any change should be made, it would be to capitalize "prefecture" because, paired with the name, it's a proper name. All articles on prefectures follow the form "X Prefecture." But these are Wikipedia internal categories and perhaps that's not necessary. Fg2 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the correct style in naming, they can be speedily renamed to capitals. As for "the", One might say: the midwestern states; or the South; or the city-state of Athens; or even The Roman Empire. That said, it's New York state, not "the" New York state. Though one might say "the" New York State legislature, or the Cook county seat. Hence my question in the nomination : ) - jc37 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  When people say "the New York State legislature," "the" is referring to "legislature." "New York State" just describes which legislature. Proper ways to talk about prefectures are to say, for example, "Gifu Prefecture" or "the prefecture of Gifu" (though the latter is much more formal). Douggers (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the "the" in that case "modifies" the word legislature. Note that if "the prefecture of Gifu" is correct, so then is "the Gifu prefecture" (Let's hear it for the Genitive case : ) - That said, it seems that common usage appears to not necessarily be correct grammatically, which is not all that uncommon. And since our guidelines suggest "common usage", I have no problem deferring to what you're saying, in this case, presuming it turns out to be true (as it seems to be thus far). - jc37 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Because of proper capitalization, "the Gifu prefecture" is not a correct because "Gifu Prefecture" is a proper known. As such, it is just one noun and not an example of the genitive form. Douggers (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All of the above aside, I'm noticing that these are rather underpopulated (most are populated by a single user who claims on their user page to be living in Tokyo, though they have the userboxes for every prefecture on their userpage (which is categorising them in every one of these). So setting that aside for a moment, most of these are empty or have a single member. Perhaps the categories should just be UpMerged to those from/in Japan. (If so, I'll renominate.) - jc37 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "the" should not be added, because it makes the phrase really awkward and unnatural. (See my above comment.) Douggers (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the others that "the" should not be included. Given how underpopulated the categories are, I'd be fine upmerging them until such time as there are enough to split them out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:Wikipedians in Japan, with no prejudice for recreation in the future, per Nihonjoe's comments above. - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more discussion of the proposed upmerge to Category:Wikipedians in Japan and whether we can generate a consensus on that point. Hiding T 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

• (Re-stating) UpMerge all to Category:Wikipedians in Japan, with no prejudice for recreation in the future, per Nihonjoe's comments above. - jc37 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge per above reasoning. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sounds ok to me (but no vote). Fg2 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. How many people should be in a location category before it is deemed enough to keep, though? There is at least 1 category with 3 users in it last time I checked, should that be enough to keep? VegaDark (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits

Category:Wikipedia editors willing to make difficult edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maybe I lack the fantasy, but I don't see the point. Under what circumstances might this category ever be a useful instrument to coordinate collaboration? Further, it was created pointing to WP:EMDE for further explanation. That page has a list signed by many more users than have added themselves to the category. User:Dorftrottel 16:48, January 15, 2008

• Comment - Perhaps a better way to nominate this would be to nominate both that page and this cat for MfD. MfD has been used in the past as a place for "package noms" (nominations of items from more than one Wikispace - category and Wikipedia spaces, in this case). That way both can be discussed at the same time. - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about an MfD, but hesitated as I wasn't sure whether WP:EMDE couldn't work as some mixed wikiproject/essay. No objection on a combined MfD though if there are no objections from others. User:Dorftrottel 01:25, January 16, 2008
    • OTOH, maybe proceeding step-by-step is more efficient. Imo, the category is more apparent in its encyclopedic uselessness than the Wikispace page, which could be appropriately labelled as an essay, since its meatpuppetry-affirming stance does certainly not reflect community consensus. User:Dorftrottel 14:21, January 17, 2008
• Note that the main list was nominated for deletion, but was kept. --Iamunknown 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks for the note (hadn't thought of checking). One particularly interesting suggestion in the debate was to make a new page that combines Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and WP:EMDE. I don't like either of the pages or categories, and I doubt there's too much purely encyclopedic intention behind such things, but maybe merging them could create something new and bigger than the pieces? User:Dorftrottel 07:37, January 16, 2008
• Keep Category page seems to explain it, and seems like a valid tool in light of those reasons. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software

Category:Wikipedians who support proprietary software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category serves no collaborative purpose and does not (by name, at least) imply interest in collaborative efforts to improve our coverage of related topics. User:Dorftrottel 16:36, January 15, 2008

• Delete - "Support/Oppose issue" category. (Such categories have been deemed in the past to be potentially divisive.) - jc37 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't see how this helps wiki collaboration; more like a divisive sneer at open-sourcers. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian cancer survivors

Category:WikiCredit

Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors

Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all its subcategories.

In my humble opinion, none of these serve any collaborative purpose. User:Dorftrottel 16:04, January 15, 2008

The subcategories that are also included are;

• Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiElves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiOgres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiZenMasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Comment - Well, where would we be without fantastic editors? I think all the subcats need to be examined first. Unless we see no merit at all in any of the included self-characterizations by editing style (Would WikiGnomes actually show up at such discussions here?), we should maybe also have a parent category, but then certainly rename it. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Agree with the above. The sub categories need to be tagged for CfD discussion and they should all be separately listed here. Let us make sure everyone has a chance to know what is going on. --Bduke (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All subcategories tagged for deletion and listed above. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Parent Category It's redundant to Category:Wikipedia fauna (with a highly debatable name), which is what those should all be subcats of. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Category:Wikipedia fauna is a category which groups Wikipedia-space pages, not Wikipedians. So the two are not redundant. (And "Fantastic" is the correct usage when referring to things which are Fantasy, they are "fantastic".) - jc37 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - I can't believe you've actually listed all those cats. Sure nom the parent cat as it is redundant to Category:Wikipedia fauna per EVula. If this was up at CfD more people would know what is going on. Most "user" cats have a fun element to them and nominating these well established cats (that are populated via their userboxes) will cause distress to some in my opinion. Very few editors would know what is going on here unless they visit the cat pages and see the notice. Not many would have this page on watch and most of the action is over at CfD. Sting_au Talk 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Personally, some of these could possibly go (ZenMasters in particular - it was apparently only created to duplicate WikiFairies for those who might not wish to be called fairies). However, some, such as WikiGnome, are terms older than Wikipedia, internet memes, which directly describe types of contribution. Because of this disparity of type, I'd like to respectfully request that this group nomination be broken up into individual nominations. - jc37 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Collecting them under "Fantastic Editors" is probably overstating it, but these are all legitimate classifications of editor that do indeed serve a collaborative purpose. Of all self-identifying user categories, these are among the most deserving of existence, as they actually pertain to editing — as opposed to even Category:Wikipedians in the United States. — TAnthony^Talk 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - No encyclopedic purpose to specifically seek out users in these categories that I can come up with. Give me an example of an encyclopedia-furthering use of these categories and I might be persuaded otherwise, but until then I really can't think of an editor going "Oh hey! I need x done! Time to go to the WikiOgres category to look for someone to help with it!" Since this will most likely end as a no consensus as is, however, I support separating this in to individual noms. VegaDark (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I myself have actually used one of these when inviting people to participate in Wikipedia:Gnome Week. That project actually met a number of goals, so there is most definitely collaborative use (not just potential, actual use) of at least one of these categories. I can't speak firsthand of the others, but I should suppose that they could all be used similarly. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All - These as a group are long-established. WP:Editors matter should apply here too. Why are we wasting time with something as benign as these? As far as "building an encyclopedia", these templates and categories can lend understanding to one's edits. As a WikiDragon (mostly), many times my edits of a bold nature can be easily understood as having come from a WikiDragon. Yeah, it's thin, but does it hurt anything? No. Does it help? Perhaps. Does it make Wikipedia more fun? Yes. (Making the internet not suck.) Keep, Keep, Keep. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's to stop me from creating a category for Wikipedians who edit every third day of the month? I'll call it Category:Wikipixies. In short, there is no defining criteria of what type of info these can contain that will "lend understanding to their edits". I see no more need to know who edits every 3rd day of the month than I see the need to know whose edits "May tend to leave trivialities such as correcting grammar, adding irrelevant internal links" (Dragon), "who works behind the scenes at Wikipedia" (Elf), "who beautifies Wikipedia by organizing messy articles, improving style, or adding color and graphics" (Fairy), "who makes useful incremental edits without clamouring for attention" (Gnomes), "Who goes for long stretches making few or no edits, but for short periods of time makes large edits, rewrites, and even new articles in brief spats of Wikiholism" (Ogre), or "who beautify or enhance Wikipedia by organizing messy articles, improving style, or adding color and graphics" (ZenMaster). You can create an infinite number of these categories, each with their own subjectively chosen criteria as to what it takes to qualify to be in the category. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Cmt Going strictly by numbers, this currently looks like a no consensus closure. However, none of the arguments to keep any of the subcategories, and particularly not the parent cat, have so far convinced me. I would logically appreciate a thorough look at the validity and depth of the presented arguments, which largely speaks for deletion or at least extensive reworking/renaming of the categories to make their usefulness more apparent and help prevent a merely self-identifying function. Issues like these appear to call for a careful top-down approach regarding education about the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, and also for potentially controversial decisions for the sake of preserving Wikipedia's status as a purely encyclopedic project. In a similar vein, I'm thinking about putting e.g. Category:Wikipedians by skill and esp. Category:Wikipedian autograph pages up for discussion as well. People against deletion/restructuring of such categories may outnumber those who are in it for maintaining encyclopedic ends, but I'm afraid that if numbers are given too much weight, like it frequently happens at AfD/MfD despite all solemn assertions regarding consensus, less apparent cases of non-productivity, non-collaboration oriented user categories may stick and set a bad precedent for others to come. That's just one meta-reason I see for deleting this category and the subcategories, in addition to VegaDark's powerful argumentation. In my own personal opinion, a fantasy-approach is not any better than the frequently-seen, horribly childish paramilitary approach (see e.g. WP:CVU etcpp). User:Dorftrottel 14:12, January 17, 2008
• Comment - Well, since it's thus far not been split, here's my comments at least:

• Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes - Strong keep - Is a term outside Wikipedia, and can be referenced as such. In addition, its inclusion criteria is clear, and I can see editors using this cat to contact someone for help.
• Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies - Keep - version of WikiGnome which deals with the aesthetic "look" of articles and such. Again, the inclusion criteria is clear, and I can see editors using this cat to contact someone for help.
• Category:Wikipedian WikiElves - Merge to Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians - synonymous with metapedian, per Wikipedia:WikiElf. See also: Association of Metapedianist Wikipedians.
• Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons - Delete - While the related essay may be interesting (I didn't find it humourous, despite its tag), and I would "vote" to keep it, it's quite clearly intended to be condescending, in an "almost" tongue-in-cheek sort of way. A category of self-described "better-than-thou" editors is probably not a good idea.
• Category:Wikipedian WikiOgres - Delete - semi-inactive Wikipedians? The Wikipedians by activity cats have been previously deleted.
• Category:Wikipedian WikiZenMasters - Strong delete - intended as a duplicate of WikiFairy, because some users might not wish to be called fairies? (Then don't use the cat...)
• (Note also that other such Wikipedian pages have been created, such as WikiSloth and WikiGremlin. If Wikipedian categories are created for such, then unless the inclusion criteria is strong, and shows how the cat can be used to contact Wikipedians for specific help, then they should probably be deleted as well.)

• Also, if (and only if) all but WikiGnomes and WikiFairies are deleted, then recat those two to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy, and then delete the then empty Category:Fantastic Wikipedia editors. If all or most of the above are kept, then the parent cat should also be kept. - jc37 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Jc37. FWIW, I agree with Jc37's assessment. User:Dorftrottel 22:28, January 17, 2008
• Concur, I too agree with Jc37. I'd also like to repeat, as I noted above, that Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes HAS been used for collaboration (not just could be, but has been), and likely will be used again in the future. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Jc37. I think his analysis is spot on. To address another point, I do not believe that those who try to develop a sense of community among wikipedians, among whom I include the people who created these categories, are not "in it for maintaining encyclopedic ends". We need community to get volunteers to work on the encyclopedia. We need to strike a balance. It is not "writing the encyclopedia" or "developing a community". We need both, so we delete stuff that really gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, or has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. --Bduke (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate the orignins of the name "Fantastic Wikipedia editors", but given the interpretations of the term, may it be prudent to rename to Category:Fantastical Wikipedia editors if it is kept? It perhaps better conveys what is meant. Hiding T 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all These are pertinent to the operation of WP, and a useful way of self-characterising working styles here. It's helpful to see the names all together. DGG (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, per arguments that show these have been used for collaboration, and for a lack of reason to delete them. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually that's only been claimed for WikiGnome, above. - jc37 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jc37 except keep WikiDragons. A category of self-described "better-than-thou" editors is probably a good idea so we know who they are, though I disagree with this assessment, and they can be called upon to improve specific articles after checking their contribs. –Pomte 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

Category:Wikipedians who like the Wolf

Category:Wikipedians who like Indiana Jones

Category:Wikipedians that loves Paris Hilton

January 11

Category:Wikipedia users with the ability to rollback

Category:User ar-lb

Category:User:Cuyler91093/False secret page

January 9

Category:Wikipedians who like 30 Rock

Category:Wikipedia users open to trout slapping‎

Category:Wikipedians by interest

Category:American Wikipedians

Category:American Wikipedians

I was reading the multiple discussions about the deletion of some other categories which people self-select to include themselves in but which were otherwise harmless, and note that this one also fails the requirement for a clear collaborative use. It clearly has a large number of members but doesn't seem to actually promote any useful activity thereby, hence this nomination. --AlisonW (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's been suggested that location-based categories can help foster collaboration due to the ability to provide relevant images/photos. That said, I agree that <x> Wikipedians can be vague. I'd suggest merging to Category:Wikipedians in North America, but it's questionable if all the members categorised themselves for those reasons. So to not accidentally miscategorise Wikipedians, I would support deleting, with a note to all former members about the above location category, as a suggestion. - jc37 01:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I would consider Category:Wikipedians in North America equally as lacking in a collaborative purpose. --AlisonW (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I'd rather see it as a parent category, which would hold all the countries of North America. I would agree that Wikipedians probably shouldn't be a member of the cat directly, but rather each a member of one of its subcats. - jc37 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as mostly harmless. We can argue all day about utility, but at the end of the day it simply comes down to whether you think users can categorise as they want within reason or not. I guess I'm of the opinion that the userbox wars are a thing of the past now and we can kind of let go of that straitjacket somewhat. Hiding T 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that other 'primarily self-definition' categories have been deleted though, why should this one survive? --AlisonW (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why should it be deleted? Otherstuff is not an argument for deletion as much as it is not an argument against deletion. If there is no consensus that this category is of no use to wikipedians, it should not be deleted. We are here to generate the consensus or lack of it. Hiding T 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  (Note that these are user categories, and not userboxes. Userboxes are template notices on a userpage. User categories are category groupings which are used as tools for navigation. Please don't confuse the two - though it's easy to do so, as I well know.) - jc37 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  ? Hiding T 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That was in response to your comment: "I guess I'm of the opinion that the userbox wars are a thing of the past now...". - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the two were heavily related the point is entirely valid. The guidance on user categories grew from the userbox wars. User category use exploded because of userboxes. The userbox war ended. We can let go of the straitjacket on user categories that was developed during that time. Hiding T 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I suggest that this be closed and considered with the January 3 discussion on Wikipedians by location. This is just one of them. I would however support a rename to Category:Wikipedians in North America and that be used as a parent category as discussed above. --Bduke (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree, except that it's rather vague in naming. If we follow that path, then I'd rather see it deleted, with a note to each member for alternatives with clearer names. (We should obviously avoid miscategorising Wikipedians. Better to delete than be inaccurate - erring on the side of caution.) - jc37 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Better to keep if we can't agree on an outcome or have doubt in our minds. If in doubt don't delete. Hiding T 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was talking about the technical side of categories. To rename a category, we actually depopulate the category; delete the category page; create a new category page; and then repopulate the category. So what I'm suggesting is to not do the last step. Instead of automatically repopulating, allow the users to repopulate as they choose, since the new name may not have the same sense of inclusion criteria as the older name. - jc37 10:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If user categories are only acceptable when they assist with collaboration, how does this category do so? Without that answer I must vote delete. Hyacinth (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Off the top of my head I can think of a lot of ways we can use then by crossing with a second category via WP:CATSCAN. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my statements made on User:Ned Scott/User categories. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per precedent, especially precedent ragarding Queer Wikipedians, LGBT Wikipedians, Gay Wikipedians, Lesbian Wikipedians, Bisexual Wikipedians, Asexual Wikipedians, Pansexual Wikipedians and all others were deleted. If you want something similar, start a "Wikipedians interested in American issues" cat as those who argued to keep Queer Wikipedians were told to create a "Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues" cat and subsequentally that's what happened. User categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration. ALLSTARecho 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overly broad. Not sufficiently defining. Runs into identity-naming considerations (like it or not, "Americans" has come is often understood to refer specifically to United States citizens; Canadians and Mexicans don't necessarily think of themselves as "Americans"). If what we want is a location hierarchy of categories, then the logical hierarchy runs downhill from continent to nation to lower-order geographical divisions. Above all else, the ambiguity of whether "American" refers to all residents of the Americas,l all residents of North America, all residents of the United States, or native-born citizens of the United States is something that would be wise to avoid; keep this category and I see endless and ultimately irresolvable debate ahead. --7Kim (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - Is this much different from anything else in Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality? I think there should be a group nom if this is to be deleted, as whatever reasoning behind this would most likely apply to anything else in that category. VegaDark (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a little different (though similar to the Carribean ones), in that the inclusion criteria of "American", as noted above, can be vague. - jc37 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Wikipedians by location