Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User

Closing

For instructions on closing debates see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User.

Speedy

Category:Wikipedians who like hockey

Merge Category:Wikipedians who like hockey to Category:Wikipedian hockey fans - jc37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Chicago Cubs

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of the Chicago Cubs to Category:Wikipedian Chicago Cubs fans per consistancy. - jc37 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - as nominator. - jc37 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian who think Mozilla Firefox sucks

Category:Wikipedian who think Mozilla Firefox sucks - Empty, and a "not" category. - jc37 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian Elfmaniacs

Rename Category:Wikipedian Elfmaniacs to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Danny Elfman, per consistancy of Category:Wikipedians by musician. - jc37 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename - as creator of the userbox. -Releeshan 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monty Python fans

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily merged (fixed the one errant template per many precedents).--Mike Selinker 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Monty Python fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python - Per previous discussions and standard. Ultimately, a duplicate.--WaltCip 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 8

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot

Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot] - Associated article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmbot. - jc37 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why exactly would user categories have to have an associated article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Afd. Based on its findings, the category should be deleted as well. (I'm just following consensus...) - jc37 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children

Category:Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children - While cute... (Also, if anyone can offer some insight into the possibility that this is more than it seems, I'm all ears : ) - jc37 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep safety first. SchmuckyTheCat 02:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who mine 4 fish

Merge Category:Wikipedians who mine 4 fish to Category:Wikipedians who listen to Authority Zero - jc37 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who love WWE

Merge Category:Wikipedians who love WWE to Category:Wikipedians who like WWE - per consistancy. - jc37 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate redlinks

Category:Wikipedians who hate redlinks - Presuming this one's obvious... - jc37 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who fix comma splices

Merge Category:Wikipedians who fix comma splices to Category:Wikipedians who obsess over grammar - While the latter is useful for editing collaboration, I don't think the various specific types of grammar issues need their own categories. (And if someone can think of a better name for the latter, please speak up : ) - jc37 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as nominator. - jc37 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think this is not a laughing matter

Category:Wikipedians who don't think forever's fun

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

The result of the discussion was: deleted both (empty).--Mike Selinker 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think this is not a laughing matter and Category:Wikipedians who don't think forever's fun - only members of each category are the userbox and the categories' creator (the same Person created both). They are "not" categories, but beyond that, I think I'm missing a cultural reference... (Not opposed to merging or a rename, if these categories are more than what they state...) - jc37 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever's being referenced. I wish I could remember what is being referenced, but there is definitely a cultural reference you're missing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the first one is from the standard spam email from Nigeria. Don't know for sure, though. Anyway, they're both empty, so I put a bullet in 'em.--Mike Selinker 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are kids at heart

Category:Wikipedians who are kids at heart - I almost didn't nominate this, because I think the sentiment is perfectly fine... However, it really doesn't help for collaborative purposes... - jc37 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please think of the children. Even if they are adults who are only children at heart. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians who are currently online

Merge Category:Online Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians who are currently online. They would seem to be the same thing. Final name is open for discussion : ) - jc37 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Wikipedians who are currently online - as nominator. (Seems to be more clear.) - jc37 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who think outside the box

Category:Wikipedian Critical Thinkers

Category:Wikipedian Critical Thinkers - While this is nice to know that they feel this way, I don't see the need for these categories. These are populated by: Template:User outsidethebox and User:Mkdw/Read, respectively. - jc37 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even on Wikipedia critical thinkers are often sadly lacking. SchmuckyTheCat 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted per creator's request.-Mike Selinker 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with PGP/GPG keys into Category:Wikipedians who use PGP

Merge, I created the former category not knowing that the latter existed. I changed the link in {{user PGP}} to point to the latter, and in no longer makes sense to have two. Avi 14:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reposted from CfD by Andrew c 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 6

Category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists

Rename Category:Wikipedian cryptozoologists to Category:Wikipedians interested in cryptozoology - The only member is due to Template:User cryptozoology, which states: "This user is interested Cryptozoology". However, due to it's current name, it was sub-categorised under Category:Wikipedians by profession instead of Category:Wikipedians by interest. - jc37 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. 1ne 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube

Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube - While I honestly am impressed, I don't see how this will help collaboration (outside of Rubik's Cube, of course : ) - jc37 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have the notion that the category may have been created in good faith, and while it doesn't aid in collaboration, I think the ability to solve a Rubik's Cube might be considered a milestone for some users. It's the difference between illiteracy and logical thinking.--WaltCip 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, helps neither collaboration nor community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WaltCip. 1ne 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's a hobby.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born in August

Category:Wikipedians born in August - only one of its kind. - jc37 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians born on August 12 - nope.--Mike Selinker 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kill it before it spreads. Also the 12th category above.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is absurd that it is okay to have an catagories called "Leo Wikipedians" but not "Wikipedians born in August".

Category:Offline Wikipedians

Category:Offline Wikipedians - Unlike Category:Online Wikipedians, I don't see how this category is useful. A userpage note (whether by userbox, or whatever), is enough. - jc37 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the definition of "offline" is ambiguous, it would be merely extrastrenuous effort to have this category, as every time you logged off you would have to place yourself in it. To defuse the "Well, what if you wanted to let people who posted on your Talk page know you weren't there?", you wouldn't need a category in the first place if you were going to be away for that long. You would make it known on the userpage. A category is just wasted time and effort.--WaltCip 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1ne 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fascinatingly recursive.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian Wikipedians

Category:Fooian Wikipedians - Ok, I've read over this page several times, and did some searches. This seems to be a generic religion category, to show how to make religion-based categories. (The same goes for the userbox.) Note that Foo in this case would seem to refer to a Metasyntactic variable. While it may be interesting as a project page for showing how to make a religion-based userbox, it shouldn't be a category. (Lack of an entry on this list would seem to support this - even the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Jedi made the list : ) - jc37 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but your nomination would seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the constant use of "foo" as a placeholder for a country, religious, or other such name. j00 b f00. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which was the reason for the link to Metasyntactic variable, above : ) - jc37 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No metacategories.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in dystheism

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted (empty).--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in dystheism - Currently empty. (Previous members were only the userbox that was apparently supposed to populate it, and Category:Dystheist Wikipedians as a sub-cat - which seems to be the naming convention of the other categories in Category:Wikipedians by religion.) Note: this is the only "interested in" category in Wikipedians by Religion. - jc37 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Mike Selinker's previous discussions regarding the nonexistent difference between "being" and "being interested in."--WaltCip 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians of multiple ancestries

Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity has many ways to be specific about nationality/ethnicity, but these two sub-cats seem to be too vague to be useful for collaboration. - jc37 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is vague, but there is an article for multiracial. Also, I see how people of mixed ancestries could aid in collaboration on articles such as racism since they may have to deal with issues that people of a single ancestry do not. However, I do think that it is reasonable to merge the two categories since it may not be necessary to make the distinction between them, but I have no preference as to which one gets merged into the other. —Cswrye 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose merging both, if no consensus to delete. How about: Wikipedians of multiple ethnicities, to match Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. - jc37 14:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1ne 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to tell people what ancestry is okay and what isn't.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as above.--es kimospy ^(talk) 02:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck

Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck - While I appreciate such a sentiment, I don't think a category is needed for this. (I found this while reading through an arbcom nominee's user contributions.) - jc37 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Delete.--WaltCip 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I think we need to dig deeper into the roots and delete the essay through which the userbox was founded.--WaltCip 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your intention, try Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion : ) - jc37 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inflammatory and unuseful; Wikipedians who don't give a **** about what? --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's trying to say 'Don't take things on Wikipedia too seriously', but right now it's just rather inflammatory. I'm a little neutral about MfDing the essay, though - I can vaguely relate to the sentiment... riana_dzasta 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who gives a fuck? —ptk✰fgs 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because...okay? You don't have to have this userbox; but perhaps others might wish to express themselves in this ironic fashion. Have any of you read the essay? These reactions seem rather of the "knee-jerk" variety, in my humble. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a moment to read the name of this page, and its introduction. This has nothing to do with the userbox, merely the associated category. - jc37 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
jc37: while I can appreciate your having appointed yourself "Minister Of Category Deletion", please understand that a) I read and understood that "this" has "nothing" to do with the userbox, and b) I voted to keep the category, not the userbox; your "ownership" of this page notwithstanding. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, your comment was: "You don't have to have this userbox; but perhaps others might wish to express themselves in this ironic fashion." - So I felt (and feel) that offering a friendly notice that this isn't about the userbox was appropriate. Now as for the rest of your comments. Please consider your tone, I believe that you're coming rather close to WP:NPA. As for "Minister of category deletion", well, in a word: wow. I suppose I could suggest that you look over the various nominations over the last couple weeks and see quite a few merges, and renames as well, but I think I'll just offer a counter name suggestion: "Participant in WP:UCFD". We (note the we) are trying to clean up all the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians. The goal of a User category is: collaboration, and/or usefulness in grouping together Wikipedians. If the only reason for a category is as a notice, then the category should be deleted/renamed/merged. And I think I should apologise to User:Mike Selinker, since if anyone should have the dubious appelation of page ownership, or even Minister, it should be his : ) - He's done an AWESOME job at helping develop consensus on these related categories, and deserves the majority of the accolades (though, as I said, dubious they may be : ) - jc37 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I did see the essay. And WP:NOT is not a sufficient argument. "Not censored" doesn't mean using an expletive every three words. Could you at least clean the thing? It's prone to vandalism--WaltCip 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You..."saw" the essay. I once "saw" a copy of "The Iliad" in the original Greek; this does not mean I read it...heh. And as for the category being "prone to vandalism"; this describes approximately 85% of the categories on Wikipedia. The category is a plea for apathy in regards to the jerks on runs into on Wikipedia; not apathy TOWARD Wikipedia; as evidenced by this statement: In short: don't be a grumpy-pants, full of apathy, but remain distanced from arguments that are passionate. I can understand why you object to the language used; but as I respect your right to keep and bear arms, please respect the rights of others to express themselves in a manner in which you do not approve. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you condone a category that said Category:Wikipedians who banged their girlfriend?--WaltCip 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't discussing that category; we are discussing Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck. I have a problem with the word "condone", as it speaks to "ownership" and "approval", which should not be part of the equation here. And just curious...would you condone a category for Category:Wikipedians who protected their girlfriend using a firearm? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No.--WaltCip 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category doesn't really mean anything; I mean, Wikipedians who don't give a fuck about what? Anthony Rupert 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not exist to provide users with a way for them to express themselves. If the category doesn't aid in collaboration, it should go. —Cswrye 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration or community-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I'm surprised at the passionate reaction because... well, you know.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime fans

Per Category: Wikipedians interested in anime and manga.--Mike Selinker 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rename per consistancy. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom in good faith. A deletion in rename nom shouldn't be made unless a point can be proven other than consistency.--WaltCip 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that : ) - I obviously meant "rename". (How does one delete per consistancy? : ) - jc37 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Encyclopaedia Metallum members

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Encyclopaedia Metallum per Category:Wikipedians by website.--Mike Selinker 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per consistancy. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users WikiProject Caucasia

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Caucasia members, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 2

Category:Martian Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We just deleted "Space Wikipedians" and "Wikipedians with Lunar citizenship", so this should go too.--Mike Selinker 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would be suprising if we really had Martians editing, especially since the life forms that may exist on Mars would be too simple to edit or even reach Earth on their own! ;) --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... but what about Wikipedians from Mars, Alabama?--WaltCip 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although judging by some of the stuff you see on NPP, some people just might be on a different planet... riana_dzasta 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians by category. My proposal (based on the Wikipedians nomination) is to move all subcategories to this new name, and then delete category:Wikipedians (thus removing all user pages).--Mike Selinker 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggested Category:Wikipedian categories in the last discussion : ) - For this one, do we need the second "Wikipedian" modifier? - jc37 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- amended to Category:WIkipedians by category.--Mike Selinker 16:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support amendment. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. VegaDark 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is something we may need to consider about renaming this category. Since it is such a major category, there are many links to it. According to its "What links here" section, there are more than 1,000 links to it. Note that the "What links here" for categories does not include the user pages that are just listed in the category. Hard redirects don't work for categories, so that's a lot of broken links that will get created. —Cswrye 09:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

158 of them are from {{User:Rfrisbie/Userbox/Userboxes not harmful}}; I'd imagine many of the others are also userbox-based. --ais523 16:02, 5 December 2006 (U T C)

Agreed, though as I mentioned in the last nomination, there are other idiosyncracies as well. : ) - jc37 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subpages or main pages of users with unsupported titles

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians with usernames with unsupported titles.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subpages or main pages of users with unsupported titles to Category:Wikipedians with usernames with unsupported titles. Or something.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedian usernames with unsupported titles. - jc37 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as current sounds awkward and does not contain "Wikipedian", standard for all user categories except Babel. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category "technically" isn't a list of users, but rather is a list of usernames. It's a minor distinction, but I think it's worth mentioning : ) - jc37 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I think any miscategorized page can adapt.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Members of WikiProject My Chemical Romance

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance members.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of WikiProject My Chemical Romance to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance members per standard of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject.--Mike Selinker 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename per previous discussions. - jc37 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:WikiProject My Chemical Romance participants. I still have the belief that "participants" sounds more welcoming than "members", where the otherwise sounds like a clique.--WaltCip 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but we've settled that issue by our hippocratic rename to "members" and "participants" in that category.--Mike Selinker 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portal categories

The Uruguauyan one was nominated below, but I felt they should be considered as a group. Not sure if this is the best wording, though.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm kind of looking forward to a discussion on these. On one hand, technically they are roughly a part of an associated WikiProject. On the other hand, It may be useful to know who actively helps with a portal. I also think "help maintain" is better than just "maintain", but I agree that other wording options would be welcome. - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, wording seems OK. riana_dzasta 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave When setting up Category:Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal, I did consider setting up a WikiProject but decided that this might be too formal, especially as there is already an Energy WikiProject. Instead I deliberatly opted for an 'interested group of contributors to the portal & topics' rather than a 'group of maintainers & administrators of the portal'. This is reflected in the name of the collaboration and in the suggested ways in which people may wish to help on the Energy Portal talk page. By changing the name in the way proposed, uniformity would be gained, but the original intention would be distorted. So, for the Energy Portal, upgrading the existing informal 'collaboration' to a formal 'WikiProject:Energy Portal' would be closest to the origial intention, if uniformity must win. But why not leave alone and use the Category:Wikipedians by portal for navigation, expanding it to include all the other collaborations, individuals and WikiProjects (which, of course, don't generally call themselves 'Maintainers of Portal X') that maintain or contribute to portals, starting with those listed in the Portal Directory. Gralo 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Category:Member League of Copyeditors

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject League of Copyeditors participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Though I may disagree with it, the nomination should probably be "members" rather than "participants", based on previous discussions. (At some time in the future, I think I may nominate them all to use a version of the word "Wikipedian".) - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia Weekly Podcaster

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants.--Mike Selinker 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly participants, convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Non-stereotypical teenage Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to category:Teenage Wikipedians.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is unique. Being a teenager that's not in this category suggests that you're stereotypical, which is highly unlikely to be true. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge into Category:Teenage Wikipedians (or just delete if there's no consensus for the merge). —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The userbox that adds people to this category also adds them to Category:Teenage Wikipedians. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but there could be some people who added themselves to the category separately from the userbox. Since a merge in this case is essentially the same as a delete (either way, the category gets deleted), I'm basically just suggesting that we looked for any differences between the categories before getting rid of this one. —Cswrye 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are 800 Wikipedians who want this category to exist, and I think that though I don't really understand it, it's a reasonable political statement. So I'm inclined to leave it alone. Failing that, though, it should merge with "Teenage Wikipedians."--Mike Selinker 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge/P2 Delete. It's practically an all-inclusive category. Teenagers who think they're non-stereotypical are indeed following a stereotype. They're just following a Freudian stage of life where they feel as though they're "rebelling", but rather, they're as liberal or conservative as the next Joe.--WaltCip 11:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - agreeing with WaltCip's comment above. - jc37 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally would judge a teenage Wikipedian differently if they were in this category from one who was not. It shows that they take the time to say they aren't the stereotype of teenagers that the world sees. Saying you are not a stereotype is NOT a stereotype itself. It does NOT mean you read books and go to coffee shops. Everyone in this category can be completely different. Tamajared 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. EVERYBODY is completely different. Therefore, this category is not necessary.--WaltCip 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My edits mostly are made during school, where I do not learn anything." And you say you're not a stereotypical teenager. <rolls eyes>--WaltCip 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is essentially a "not" category. Opens the door for "Teenagers who are not ______" categories if kept, which I don't feel are useful. VegaDark 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete catcruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of that particular category, merge to Category:Teenage Wikipedians. Cbrown1023 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Eagle 101

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

The result of the discussion was: no action taken. This category must be relisted with all others, because the only change is to a template which will affect all of them. If all are approved for deletion, the change can be made.--Mike Selinker 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Eagle 101 - this category has only one "test account" listed, which the user quite clearly lists on his userpage. — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think we need separate categories for every user with an alternate account. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Not Drug Free Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge per many precedents.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Not Drug Free Wikipedians - A "not" category. Also redundant with Category:Drug-using Wikipedians. VegaDark 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Drug-using Wikipedians or delete as nominator. VegaDark 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - If no consensus to delete, Merge per nom. - jc37 09:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into Category:Drug-using Wikipedians per nom (or delete if there's no consensus for a merge). —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Mike Selinker 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/P2 Delete. Redundant negative category. Next thing, we'll probably have Wikipedians who don't never play chess with nobody.--WaltCip 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 29

Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support legality in userboxes - While I understand that there are those who support and oppose various legal issues, this one was resolved by consensus. See also Wikipedia:Userboxes#Caution about image use. So I believe whatever purpose it once served, it's now just a category that we should all belong to : ) - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be implied as it's Wikipedia policy not to include fair use images in the userspace. VegaDark 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll assume that there exist no Wikipedians who wish to violate the law. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category no longer serves a purpose. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes - Sounds like a "not" category. (And rather vague at that.) - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen in this category, it basically says that everything about the user is more than meets the eye, and simply cannot be defined through userboxes. Obviously this is going to be a very controversial topic, as the category consists of thousands of members, but it appears to be mathcruft. Interchangeable delete per nom.--WaltCip 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any use for this category. Nobody is going to assume that people are only the sum of their userboxes unless people are in this category. VegaDark 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no good reason to delete it.Cameron Nedland 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Contrariwise, there's no good reason to keep it.--WaltCip 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this is fine for a userbox, there's no obvious reason why the userbox needs a category. --ais523 10:15, 30 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete - What does it mean to be more than the sum of one's userboxes? This category's just taking up space when a userbox is enough. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm glad that some users feel this way, but there's no purpose for a category. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 28

Category:Wikistress

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to category:Wikipedians by wikistress level.--Mike Selinker 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikistress → Category:Wikipedians by wikistress level to show that it's a user-related category. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. --Mike Selinker 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. —Cswrye 17:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

November 26

Locations

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

The result of the discussion was: closing all as no consensus until a workgroup comes together to make a rational plan.--Mike Selinker 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The following discussions (from/of/on/born in) should probably all be read in order to determine concensus. Comments regarding each have been posted at times in only one or the other of the discussions. (I suppose I should have made this a single nomination, my apologies) - jc37 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Standard for Locations

The Location discussion appears to me that it will never end, as their is no official policy. Arguments for and against how a User category location can be described will always have objectors. I for one got extremely upset in a discussion on locations. But I do realise some order needs to be brought to locations.

The primary aim of any category is to aid in collaboration, so how do you set a wikipedia standard for all locations whether from/born/living/interest in/affinity for or something else. How would "passing through" aid collaboration? I am not for or against any particular method, but can someone come up with a standard that allows people to express where they are from, but also and more importantly to express what they wish to collaborate on.

There is no point in having all these discussions as the outcome on one discussion may be the direct opposite of another and so no standard is ever set and someone who prefers one method will challenge an already agreed contrary method. Perhaps this discussion on locations should have a dedicated area and instead of having all these independent discussions below, just have one discussion on how to sort them all out. NilssonDenver 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories up for discussion

Category:Wikipedians born in Czechoslovakia

Category:Wikipedians born in Glasgow

Category:Wikipedians born in Iowa

Category:Wikipedians born in Spokane

Category:Wikipedians born in Texas

Delete all or Rename, removing the word "born", to match other location categories. Otherwise, we'll eventually have (at least) two locations for every wikipedian: Where they were born, and where they live now. (I'm choosing to avoid the "from" confusion). - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting since I relisted the related "from" discussion below. - jc37 12:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - I'm still on the fence about which way to go, so waiting to decide for now. - jc37 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and make this the standard. The Texans went crazy when I nominated their category last time, and this was the compromise. I think you can either be "in" some place, or you can be "born in" some place, but more gradation makes it problematic.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being "born in" somewhere seems a sufficiently specific (i.e. viable) category, as I guess it's possible to be born in one place, brought up somewhere else (be "from" somewhere else...?) and now live in a third place (be "in" a third place). So if Albert Einstein were a Wikipedian, I guess he could choose to sport all three kinds of categories: Wikipedians born in Germany, Wikipedians from Switzerland and Wikipedians in the United States. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a bit like category creep : ) - At the very least, the "born in" categories should be merged to the "from" categories. jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In mainspace I guess it might be category creep, but as these are categories folk can use to describe themselves, they might want the option to use any and all three... David (talk) 04:17, November 25, 2006 (UTC)
This is the exact problem which lead to creation of Category:Wikipedians with some affinity to the Southern United States, regardless of their place of birth or current residence. To give a concrete example, I was neither born in Kentucky, nor do I live there now, but I did live there for more than 20 years, and I identify strongly with the state, and contribute to a number of Kentucky articles. I would be excluded from a "born in" or "lives in category" -- do those categories really serve more purpose than simply saying "Texan," "Kentuckian," "Iowan," (or the less-defined "from")etc.? Cmadler 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, these were all of the "born in" categories. Is this a trend we want to start? Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is one of those instances where a category could require a minimum number of members to be viable, e.g. if someone created the category Wikipedians from the Mojave phone booth but after N weeks/months it had less than (say) five members, then it would be deleted. (Maybe not feasible, probably would require a bot, ...) Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That means that all of the above would be deleted except texas. Also, these could all be renamed "from" and still be accurate (though possibly less "precise"). However, for collaboration purposes, I don't think we need to differentiate between "born in" and "from". The userbox obviously may be either or both, but there should only be a single category, if any. Also noting that "in" could apply to anyone who travels. ("Today I'm in Germany, and tomorrow I'm in France"). Maybe "from" should be the standard for all? - jc37 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Let's get through this, then make a broad proposal that all these locational categories become "from."--Mike Selinker 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that "from" is or would be used to mean "where I grew up", while "in" is or would be used to mean "where my home is now (even if I travel a great deal, etc)". Maybe a survey somewhere to see if any consensus over using any or all the following might clarify folks' wishes regarding their self-description:

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates
Type	Family	Handles wiki table code?^†	Responsive/ Mobile suited	Start template	Column divider	End template
Float	"col-float"	Yes	Yes	{{col-float}}	{{col-float-break}}	{{col-float-end}}
Float	"columns-start"	Yes	Yes	{{columns-start}}	{{column}}	{{columns-end}}
Columns	"div col"	Yes	Yes	{{div col}}	–	{{div col end}}
Columns	"columns-list"	No	Yes	{{columns-list}} (wraps div col)	–	–
Flexbox	"flex columns"	No	Yes	{{flex columns}}	–	–
Table	"col"	Yes	No	{{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}}	{{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}}	{{col-end}}

^† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead. Regards, David (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idle thought: As I look at Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, the introduction would seem to suggest that these should be included in those categories, with the format: <ethnicity/nationality>-ian Wikipedians. - jc37 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle. I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question. Er iel hon an 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive area. Texans appear not to take kindly to changes either. NilssonDenver 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island

Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island - This one should also be decided with the "from" categories below. - jc37 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey

Category:Wikipedians of Monterrey - This one should be decided with the "from" categories directly below. (Please respond there : ) - jc37 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Argentina

Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge

Category:Wikipedians from Eritrea

Category:Wikipedians from Garneau

Category:Wikipedians from Kerala

Category:Wikipedians from Massachusetts

Category:Wikipedians from Queensland

Category:Wikipedians from Setúbal

Category:Wikipedians from the European Union

Delete all or Rename, changing "from" to "in", per consistency. (I guess I wasn't able to avoid "from", per "born" below : ) - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting for further discussion, and to remove any concerns due to tag removal - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these. - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply needs to be populated, there are many other categorys listing wikipedians by location --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "born in" versions. See below.--Mike Selinker 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even think about deleting this category. I have removed the category for deletion link from the article. I am highly insulted that you would discriminate against someone who wishes to express themselves as from the european union. You do not need to be born in the european union to be part of the european union. I could not believe it when I saw the link, I thought it was vandalism. NilssonDenver 17:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no discrimination here. The nomination is just one of many designed to bring the category system into some sort of consistency. Please do not accuse people of biases they do not have.--Mike Selinker 03:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't {{prod}}. I'll be re-adding the tag, so that people can find this discussion. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"From" indicates to me a place of origin but not necessarily where the person now lives, whereas "in" indicates the opposite (i.e. the place where the person now lives but did not necessarily originate). So I guess you could be a "Wikipedian from X" and a "Wikipedian in Y", i.e. both types of category viable...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again, this is all of the "from location" categories. Is this a trend we want to start? Also: by city, by state, by territory, by country? Considering that there are so few to start with, if kept, I think we should probably merge to country. - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with deleting them all as well.--Mike Selinker 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me deleting Wikipedians from the European Union is racist and discriminatory and I will fight this on these grounds. That is how strongly I fell about it. I will remove the link again in 24 hours if no one else places a more appropriate discussion category link and will keep removing the deletion link. There must be a better way of indicating a discussion on renaming a category is proposed but deletion I will continue to object to for this category. I am european and I will not be categorised as anything else. You may not understand the depth of feeling I have on this subject and I understand you may be trying to make wikipedia more efficient and/or readable but you have touched on a nerve. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by NilssonDenver (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). - jc37 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nilsson, would you be okay with category:Wikipedians in the European Union? That seems like a legitimate subcategory of category:Wikipedians in Europe to me. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 16:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle. I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question. Er iel hon an 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing peoples right to express the nationality and/or where they live. You cannot be allowed to categorise somebody to suit your needs. I am furious with this. I am from the european union. My passport tells me I am.

If you tell the scottish wikipedians who are proud to be scottish that you want to remove their scottishness from wikipedia I know you will have a fight on your hands. I am from the european union, if I move to the USA am I now categorised as North American. Stop now what you are doing. You have chosen without discussion on the Wikipedians from european union category page to propose deletion. You are the one trying to prove a point of trying to recategorise to suit what you want. I am putting back what is supported by those people who are proud to be wikipedians from the european union.

If you take on other nationalities you will get the same anger, that someone would just change/remove or delete their expression of nationality or anything else they wish to express themselves by.

People can be living in, born in, proud to be part of a country, leave well alone. I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to prevent people who freely contribute to this site being categorised to suit an index. A user can classify themselves in many ways. You can not be permitted to prevent users to express themselves.

If more categories are needed than let them be added. Who decides if a category is suitable or not? If I am a pipe smoking, scottish nationalist, living in australia I want to be categorised that way. Until someone comes up with the perfect indexing system leave it as it is.

Comment - I respectfully suggest that you refrain from engaging in a WP:POINT action (a disruptive action to make a point). So I am restoring the category to where it was before you interfered without any discussion. NilssonDenver 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to whom is this comment directed? The unsigned EU Scot? - Er iel hon an 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume to me, since it's a near duplicate of something I said above. - jc37 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear about this: Do not delete the tag. I will roll back any attempt to circumvent the discussion. Civilly express whatever opinions you want here, but do not attempt to hide the discussion from others.--Mike Selinker 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let us be civil. jc37 and Mike Selinker On what grounds will you delete Category:Wikipedians from the European Union. On what grounds will you delete any category that expresses a place born, lived in or from.

You started a deletion process without an idea as to how it should end. You were uncertain yet you felt the need to mark a category for deletion.

"as per "born" below, I'm uncertain which way to go with these." - jc37 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is vandalism. If I feel some category does not feel right, can I go right along mark a page for deletion without giving a reason or suggestion. Talk first, come up with suggestions, then act would be a polite way to do things.

Lets take Scotland as an example. There are Category:Scottish Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians in Scotland categories. Category 1 does not mean you have to be living in Scotland, but you are scottish. Category 2 are wikipedians living in but not necessarily from Scotland. What will yo do with these categories?

I advise that you do not try and reclassify these users as they are expressing themselves in different ways. Some may even be expressing both. As Er iel hon an wrote Keep all - born in, from, lives in are tricky to handle. I would recommend not restricting, merging or otherwise messing with locale or regional boxes without consensus recommendation of a larger, sponsored workgroup tasked specifically with answering this question.

You can tidy up indexes but you must not stop freedom of expression.

I would suggest that you refrain from marking a category for deletion. Renaming or moving may not bring out as strong a response as mine, but when it comes to country, nationality, location you will have a battle without support from the entire wikipedia community.

How will we finish this discussion and get the category Category:Wikipedians from the European Union decided on. This can not go on indefinitely.

I was born in, I am living in, I hold a passport from. Some may aspire to be, working in, passing through, refugee from. If you want change on this area, start at the top with a working group. Don't pick on particular categories because they don't fit someones index. Change in this area would require great reorganisation. Is this a project worth pursuing. This is the question you should put out there?

Now we have a category being discussed for deletion and a precedent being set that will affect all categories. My suggestion is stop right now, find an area to discuss nationalities and location, and if the wikipedians want change let them decide if nationalities or locations or any description should be limited or expanded. I again suggest you stop right now as this is too sensitive an area to mess with. Come with ideas before staring a deletion process and remove the category deletion from Category:Wikipedians from the European Union NilssonDenver 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I mean this in no way disrespectful, but I think much of your concern above is due to a misunderstanding of Categories fordiscussion. Just because someonething is labelled for deletion, doesn't mean that that is the only possible outcome. I am limited by only being able to place one tag, and to place the "renaming" tag requires a target for the rename. In this case, I had no idea, and "deletion" was also an option. therefore, the obvious solution was to tag it as a "deletion", and when someone comes here for the discussion they will be able to see the options, and perhaps even suggest some of their own. In all, please assume good faith. Believe it or not, if you'll take a moment to check out my userpage, I tend towards inclusionism (Wikipedia is not paper), and eventualism. So I always do a bit of a double-take when someone suggests that I am a deletionist : ) - I just like orderly organisation, and I believe that developing naming conventions/standards is helpful for everyone. I just don't think that having 3 or more different ways to say something about where a wikipedian is "from" is helpful. It tends to spread them across categories, rather than unify them for ease of navigation/finding. I hope this helps clarify : ) - jc37 11:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Messing with nationalism is dangerous. How people express themselves whether they are proud to be living in the European Union or from the European Union you cannot take away that right. To box someone in under a category to suit an index is asking for trouble. If you delete the European Union category then how will I express my relationship with the European Union. It still annoys me that you would place this category up for discussion without proper thought as to what should happen with this category.

Are you supporting this category's deletion? Who decides now where this discussion ends? I support both living in the European Union and from the European Union and I will not prevent any user from declaring their beliefs as long it is non offensive and then offensiveness is another policy decision for a working group.

So please answer my question, when does this end? Will the right to declare yourself as Wikipedians living in the European Union and Wikipedians from the European Union be removed. If you are an inclusionist you cannot remove the right to express onesself because you want a nice tidy index.

Note I picked Scotland as an example as there is a proud Scottish Wikipedian who is a Wikipedian from the European union, living in England whose right to express this information will be removed. And I am telling you now, you don't want to mess with the Scottish Wikipedians both from and living in categories :-)

So to conclude 1. No deletion; 2. Have at least 2 categories for the European Union, living in and from the; 3. Stay away from users national declarations; 4. If you feel that the current indexes are too unorganised, work through the process of getting wikipedia policy set, however that is done; 5. Decide when this discussion will run its course. NilssonDenver 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to speak to Nilsson's point about freedom of expression. While it is one of our alienable rights as citizens, it is irrelevant to this discussion. The category system, and indeed all of the userpage activities on Wikipedia, fall under the policy Wikipedia is not webspace. If a user wants to express himself fully, that's what webpages are for. Here we are trying to decide what the basis for a collaborative category system is. In this particular case, we are faced with five different and somewhat overlapping structures which may never be easy to rationalize into a smaller group. If so, that's fine; we'll end up with "in" and "from" and "born in" categories until another group (possibly the proposed workgroup) comes along to straighten it out. But let's avoid the indiscriminate labels of people being racist or discriminatory or stifling of expression. This discussion will run its course when the time runs out on the nomination in a few days, which will only get extended if someone decides to delete the tag yet again. And especially, Nilsson, regardless of how annoyed you are, you need to lay off the threats of who we "don't want to mess with," because that more than anything else will lead to your own freedom of expression being stifled with a block. I hope we're clear on this.--Mike Selinker 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please remember that this is a discussion. It doesn't mean that any categories automatically get deleted. In fact, the nomination mentioned the possiblity of a renaming. The appearance of this group of categories was just to try to get consensus on their merits and how they can best benefit Wikipedia. No person or group was being attacked by this nomination. The existence of these categories, as well as their name, depends on what consensus determines is best for collaboration, because that is ultimately why user categories exist. —Cswrye 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a now more concilatory mindset and apologetic demenour and having read around about wikipedia policy here are my thoughts expressed calmly :-)

While categories may have been designed for a particular use, rightly or wrongly, they are used as items by a user to express themselves. Their user pages are not enough. If there was an original policy on user categories it has not been enforced and to enforce it now will, as I have shown, cause friction between those who wish to apply the policy as they believe it was originally envisaged and those who see it differently.

WP:NOT#WEBSPACE"The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration" this is wikipedia policy. It can be argued that placing a category showing your location from or in would help collaboration as you can find users local to you or users in an area you wish to examine, combined with other user categories can narrow your search.

WP:UC Wikipedia:User categorization is not considered a guideline on Wikipedia at this stage.

User Categories seems to be the one that evolved beyond that of what its original creators taught it might become and is now so well established as an expression of many things, to remove it will be to confuse users understanding of what it is. There appears to me to be no definitive policy on user categories and while a project has been started it still has no "official" status. If a user page is to help collaboration on wikipedia, a huge cleanup would be required as user pages I have seen have many references that I cannot see how they would help with collaboration.

As much as Wikipedia is suppose not to be a social network it has the traits of a social network. We all collaborate on this project, we communicate, we add data and create information for articles, we discuss, we argue, we fight, we sulk, we yell and we find expression on our user page. Wikipedia is alive. Its users have given it life and it is evolving. It may be outgrowing its software limitations and cannot cope easily with many indices (indexes). To standardise wording, such as every category must start with "Wikipedians" would help efficiency, to remove categories would be to take the heart from Wikipedia, and remove the diversity that users express themselves by. I came to wikipedia to add my knowledge freely and have stayed because of the variety of users and contributions, the diversity of expressions and I have watched it grow exponentially.

Effective collaboration are words used in Wikipedia policy, but how now do you define effective collaboration. 1,500,000 articles, I don't know how many users, but the system appears to be working. Wikipedia is alive and expressing itself in so many ways. I hope it does not become strangled by efficiency, organised it should be, restrictive it should never be. NilssonDenver 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See now, that's a fine argument. I can't say I disagree with any of that. Thanks for changing your tone rather than your tune.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General agreement with MS directly above - And you listed some good descriptions as to why we do have location-based user categories. And, personally, I don't believe that we should delete the truely location-based categories, either. However, the system needs clean-up. (To use a metaphor, the bush needs pruning in order to foster healthy growth.) So, if we accept that location-based categories are justifiable, two things then yet need addressing in this case: Do we need a category to group such Wikipedians, rather than just a userbox or other userpage notice (I believe so, in this case); and how should such groupings (and groups of groupings) be named, in working towards a standardisation in naming. I believe that the categories should be unified as much as possible, while yet following precision, to help unify such groupings, for easier navigation/searches. (etc etc etc.) - jc37 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Chocoholic Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chocoholic Wikipedians - The userbox that populates this cat: "This user eats chocolate." - Guess that makes it a food cat : ) - jc37 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No food categories.--Mike Selinker 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a food category. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kilt-wearing Wikipedians - someone mentioned clothing categories below : ) - jc37 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unuseful. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Reclusive Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reclusive Wikipedians - Wikipedians who hide away from the world for various reasons. - jc37 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a condition.--Mike Selinker 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who respect the beliefs of others

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who respect the beliefs of others - I presume this includes everyone? : ) - jc37 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all-inclusive categories. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't like what it says about the rest of us.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't everyone supposed to do this? Herostratus 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar UCFDs. Should include everyone, and suggests that those who are not in the category do not respect the beliefs of others. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 01:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Politically incorrect Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politically incorrect Wikipedians - The userbox should be enough. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one at least states a position that's vaguely political. I guess it's technically a "not" category, but it's okay with me.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see how anything more than the userbox is "useful". - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague. Herostratus 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — says something Wikipedianishly relevant about people's positions on things (i.e., may be relevant to editing activitiesand may quite well "facilitate collaboration" or reduce strife - one may moderate one's comments to someone based on a categorization like this, if one understands that the other person is "coming from" a particular stance out of habit/belief.) I personally find it rather valuable to understand other editors' socio-political viewpoints, and I find that such information often auto-explains edits or statements in Talk that would otherwise be inexplicable. PS: It's not a "not" category, at all. Being consciously "politically incorrect" is an affirmative stance, a position, not simply a reaction to something; to see it as just a negative reaction is to be missing the point, I suspect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category doesn't really apply to many articles, so I doubt it would help with collaboration. If anyone wants to use it to make a statement about themselves, a userbox or statement on their user page will suffice. —Cswrye 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for religious reasons

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for religious reasons - Duplicative of Category:Wikipedians by religion. - jc37 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even know what this category means. Their religion requires the use of userboxes?--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Niko Silver 00:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague, and otherwise double-speak.--WaltCip 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a joke. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Oprahist Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oprahist Wikipedians - This is populated by this userbox. It's obviously not an actual religion. On this page (the category's only member, which is a storage gallery), it's listed under "religious humor". - jc37 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's okay to have a fictional religion category (e.g., category:Haruhiist Wikipedians), but preferably not one that mocks the category system.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made-up religion. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who are androgynous when online

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who are androgynous when online - Essentially: "People who have a pronoun preference, or a lack thereof, when online" - I think the userbox is enough. I don't see a need for a category in this case. - jc37 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who want iPods

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who want iPods - Similar to the wanting cats or dogs below. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with whatever the liking iPods category is. No collaboration value from this alone. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into category:Wikipedians who use iPods. If someone in this category hasn't ever used an iPod, well, they can delete themselves from it.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike above. Niko Silver 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merging with the category of iPod users would just be silly. Read the userbox: "This user does not have an iPod, but wants one". Deleting the category is OK, I suppose, but merging it with a totally different, opposing category is silly. — Gary Kirk // talk! 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No value beyond Category:Wikipedians who use iPods, and it doesn't mean the same thing, so a merge doesn't make sense. —Cswrye 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in the Rogue Nation - Believe it or not, this is a food category (well, drink, anyway). - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's actually a fairly big organization of people, so even though it's a food category, it meets the definitions of category:Wikipedians by organization.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a bit tipsy, but the presence of such things as Scarborough Country or Savage Nation permits this category's usage.--WaltCip 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is that different than a category of: 'Wikipedians who drink alcohol"? Except it's more focused? I'd bet that there are even more people that eat apples (or eat at McDonald's) than members of the rogue nation, but we've disallowed those... And how about the members of the Burger King's kids club? : ) - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, it's a weak keep. It fails on the food front but succeeds on the organization front. I'm generally going to vote keep in that case, but you may go another way.--Mike Selinker 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no article for this, so even if it is a legitimate organization, it's not notable enough to merit a category since there's nothing to collaborate on. —Cswrye 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admins

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats

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

The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats - Duplicates Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 11:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More useful than the Wikipedia page is, (or would be if properly populated) and corresponds with the admin category. --tjstrf talk 11:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Comment: Easier for navigation and automatically maintainable. We wouldn't delete Category:Wikipedia administrators, would we? Duja► 11:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I like the idea, it's not being used, and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats also makes clear about how active they are as well, rather than just a big list. Besides, this duplicates a special page as well (Special:Listusers). - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Listusers has a combo? Learn something new every day... I'll change my mind, at least for a while. Duja► 12:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very useful.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any more useful than Special:Listusers? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above.--Mike Selinker 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Categories have advantages over lists, and in fact, they are generally preferred over them. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, actually. See WP:CLS. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with that guideline, and I still think that this is a case where a category is appropriate. Since it will appear on the user's userpage, anyone looking at the user can simply click on the link if they need to find other bureaucrats rather than having to try to find the list (which they may not even know exists). -Cswrye 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.--WaltCip 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Keep per others.--WaltCip 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you're supporting the nom, I have to ask... Did you check out the category? : ) - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Category:Wikipedia administrators. -- nae'blis 17:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is useful to know who the 'crats are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I note above, I don't disagree that " it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find". - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanation about how to find the special page to the category (it doesn't seem to have a URL for 'crats specifically). Wow, that category needs populating. --ais523 14:10, 27 November 2006 (U T C)

Nod, hence my comments above : ) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — it's a valid categorization, and even relevant to Wikipedian activities. Leave it. Agree that it "should include them all", but the fact that it doesn't presently isn't sufficient grounds for category deletion.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly vital, but nonetheless useful. Alai 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia administrators

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

The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators - The admins by nationality subcats can be merely recategorised as subcats of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. Delete the parent cat and all its members as a duplication of Special:Listusers and Wikipedia:List of Administrators. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one's really useful, and delightfully simple in its name.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any more useful than Special:Listusers? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but many users don't use the "Special" feature. For those who use the category system, this allows users to find administrators that want to list themselves there.--Mike Selinker 19:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Special:Listusers isn't well known, and categories have advantages over lists, so this is better than Wikipedia:List of Administrators. The admins by nationality subcats are fine, but I still think it's good to have all of the admins listed in a single place. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong and Very Speedy Keep - It would be shame for us non-administrators to have it deleted. Just the other day I was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. This catgory isn't just showcase for some of the best Wikipedians and a source for inspiration, it is also a extremely good platform to ask for help, often better than the Pump. Please, try and delete a hundred thousand other ridiculous, confusing or useless categories. Leave this one out. I'd rather propose to make it more comprehensive and put all admins to it. - 06:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As stated in the nomination, the "admins by nationality/ethnicity" sub-categories would be Kept, I am merely suggesting that the umbrella category be deleted as a duplication. - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy one-click to a useful list. Gets a newbie there fast when needed. Antandrus (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, logical supercat. -- nae'blis 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a useful category. --Majorly (Talk) 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful category. VegaDark 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct/correct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. (if anything, I think I'd argue for deletion of the list rather than the category) ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned under Bureaucrats, above: "Considering you posted this after my "suggest close" post below, I wonder if you read it before you posted this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I believe I've already responded to this below." - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Close per WP:SNOW (as nominator), and because I really can't argue against it. I have to agree with the discussion, the category is better than a list in this case. The inherent problem is that these two categories are not "in date", likely because new admins are just added (or add themselves) to that incredibly long list. I think an automatically generated list (such as Special:Listusers) is the best option, but I have to agree that it may not be easy for a newbie/casual reader to find. So perhaps the better course of action would be to work in the reverse direction, and suggest that the list be merged to the category. To be "useful" the admin category really should include all admins (same with bureaucrats). We can always create additional subcats for active and inactive (and nationality-based), but the main cat should include them all, for all the reasons stated in these CfD discussions. Thanks to all who commented here : ) - jc37 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you put a link to the correct invocation of Special:Listusers into the category description, whether this is speedy closed or not, so that in future people can decide for themselves. Me, I don't think newcomers will easily find how to use Special:listuers... I am not seeing, in general, the case made that any of these categories are less suited than a list. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly sensible category with a useful application. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case, the size of the set argues fairly strongly for a category instead of (or rather, as well as) a list (or indeed, various lists, as is presently the case). Alai

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

Category:Wannabe rouge admins

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

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wannabe rouge admins - These get funnier and funnier : ) - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete, listify if wanted. - as nominator. - jc37 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator . Well, the intention was to add an additional level of irony; the parent category survived the CfD so I see no particular reason to delete this as well. (Not that I'd mind too much, basically this is a question of how much messy humor we're ready to tolerate). Duja► 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm someone who would champion the idea that we should preserve humour on Wikipedia : ) - However, I think in this case it would be much better as a List rather than a category. Otherwise, we're opening ourselves up to having categories of humourous categories, and I don't think that that would be a good idea. - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mentioned it, it actually struck me as an excellent idea . Now seriously, is there a policy on user categories? We seem to be discussing on I like it/I dislike it level. Most of the ones that you're now putting under scrutiny were tolerated so far as "no big deal" or "they do no harm"; I realize that is not the approach we take in article space, but I'm fairly undecided as to what set of rules should apply to UCs as well. Duja► 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guidelines are based on a condensation of User:Cswrye's guideline for user categories. Here's the rule I use: A user category will be kept (though perhaps renamed) only if it either relates to an editor's basic demographic information, areas of expertise, interests that a user may want to edit, or involvement in Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful because of the utility of the category nominated below.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify "utility"? - jc37 03:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides humour value, what's the usefulness? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't think of any. The Rouge admin category should stay, but I can't justify this one. Delete.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See discussion below. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's rouge, then there's wannabe rouge which just kills it. --Majorly (Talk) 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like Duja's category.--Aldux 00:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above argument is the same butchered "Keep it because I like it!" argument used by the Esperanzan police. There's no need for vague humor on a website that attempts to provide integral information.--WaltCip 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if you want to be a Rouge admin, nothing is stopping you except perhaps a lack of a healthy respect for your own sense. Horrible thing to categorise. I get the joke, but the category is not useful. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly more useful than the "main" category (free RFA oppose with every usage), but should logically be deleted if that one is. Alai 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rouge admins

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rouge admins - It's humour, but since there is an associated humour page: Wikipedia:Rouge admin, the category should probably go. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete, listify if wanted. - as nominator. - jc37 11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless and is a part of Wikipedians by philosophy. I'd also like to mention that user categories are far more useful than user lists because they don't have problems with going out of date, so listify is not imo a valid alternative. --tjstrf talk 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tjstrf. Oh no, the cabal can't possibly let you do that; we'll all climb the Reichstag if this gets deleted. Duja► 11:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in the nom directly above. : ) - jc37 11:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was on a CfD before (like about everything related with WP:ROUGE)? Duja► 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to Rouge users. Niko Silver 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely a useful group category. (Though I'd love it if they'd support a rename to category:Wikipedians in the Rouge admins.)--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides humour value, what's the usefulness? - jc37 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People would like to know who are the members of the cabal. Besides, why do you seek for usefulness besides humor value? Duja► 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It adds nothing that a simple list couldn't do better; but why do we need a list? surely all admins are rouge admins by definition? Abtract 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not true, see below... many admins are very process centric and not at all willing to Do the Right Thing if it requires IAR. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like Wikipedia:Rouge admin; it's funny, and it makes a good point. However, I fail to see how a category adds to that humor or helps make a point. If it's important for an admin to be list him- or herself as a Rouge admin, perhaps they should consider creating a list on the article itself. That may even be more effective in that it would let people who visit the page immediatly see who the Rouge admins are. -Cswrye 05:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The easy fix there is to just have a link to the category, described as a way to see who is in it, on that page. No need for a list. The case that a list is better than a category in this instance has not been made. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I {{sofixit}}-ed it. :) it's linked now. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a list isn't better than a category. They're both pointless in this case since the page is about humor anyway. At least with a list, everything is kept in one place, and it avoids having to go to multiple pages to catch the humor. Also, far too many humor categories get created, and it doesn't reflect well (and can even be perceived as hypocritical) to delete them while letting admin keep their humor category. Besides, I've chosen to rebel against the cabal, and I'm taking it down one rouge admin at a time! :-) —Cswrye 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT or just trying to be funny? This category is not *just* humor, which point seems to be lost on some. This is a useful category, as are many categories that identify some subset of admins. (As before, consider Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles... very useful as a category, less useful as a list and would be more work to maintain) 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) .

Please, settle down! I thought it was obvious that the last line was just humor, but I really meant the rest of it. I'm starting to understand the point you've been making below that this distinguishes admins who focus more on ignoring all rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia from those who focus more on following proper process. That does make sense to me, and I'm on the verge of changing my vote to "keep". However, I do have a question. How does the category relate to Wikipedia:Rouge admins? The point that the humor page makes is that admins follow policy and consensus even though many users complain about them suppressing The Truth™, which doesn't have anything to do with WP:IAR. By the way, this doesn't mean that I've given in to the cabal. —Cswrye 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reasoning how this category harms Wikipedia. Grue 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from being an essential part of Wikipedia culture, there's something quite serious hidden behind this "humorous" category; it's made clear in WP:ROUGE. Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have my curiosity peaked. I've re-read that article, and I don't see any purpose for the category, in that article, serious or otherwise. What am I missing? - jc37 15:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid category for admins with a broad interpretation of WP:IAR, if humorous. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless fun. --Majorly (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duja.--Grand Slam 7 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the history of Wikipedia. Being placed in the category is part of the gag....Promotes a whistle while you work attitude. --FloNight 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, is it useful to know who considers themselves (or is considered by their peers) a Rouge admin? I feel it is. Humor stripped aside, admins in this category have stated explicitly they are willing to Ignore all rules and processes, as needed, for the good of the encyclopedia. Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important. Whether you agree with one view or the other, surely you would agree there is a distinction and it is a distinction with a difference. Knowing who is in which camp is not in and of itself divisive, so there is indeed encyclopedic value and use in knowing who is ROUGE. Second, then, given that there is value in knowing this, is it better to have a category or a list? Consider that we have Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles as a category... On the other hand we have Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks as a list. I think rather than moving categories to lists (in general not the way we do things, lists are inferior to categories) we ought to be moving current lists to categories. Third, this has been brought up before... Therefore Keep. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first part has nothing to do with this discussion (though I thought it was a nice overview, and we should link to it should anyone attempt to delete the article), since in no way does this nomination suggest that the article (or any associated userboxes) be removed. I disagree with your comments about lists and categories (See WP:CLS, as I've noted at your other similar comments). Each has their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do appreciate that you did understand that this is about the grouping, which apparently has been confused by several people. Other than FLoNight's comment above, I haven't heard a single reason why the category should be kept. And her rationale is concerning because that means it's a category that you're placed in by other Wikipedians (not everyone has the same sense of humour). My thoughts on this are in total agreement with what User:Cswrye summed up above.- jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While true that some lists have some advantages over some categories, you need to make the case that this particular category is better suited to be a list if you want it to be a list. Which case you have not made. I'd further argue that if you want it deleted, you should first construct the replacement list and make sure it's up to date, else you are pushing work on to other folk unfairly. I also note that your opening argument is that because this is humor it should not be a category. That's a nonsequiteur that the first part of my response addresses, so it's not true that "The first part has nothing to do with this discussion" as you state. Note that you also state, above "I don't see any purpose" and I've refuted that as well. Are you ready to concede that either a categeory or a list is needed, and that having neither would be less optimal than where we are now? If so we can stick to why a category is better in this instance, but if not, we need to flatten the issue of why one or the other IS a good thing to have first. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see a need even for a list. I was merely saying I wouldn't oppose one, if wanted. There are many humour pages in project space, and this is/would be just one more. As I believe I've said repeatedly, I just don't see the need for a group for this. WHat i've yet to see in your responses is a reason to keep besides "because I want it kept" and "because categories are better than lists". If that's the sum total of your position, that's fine. Whether I agree with it or not, it's a valid enough perspective. But what I'm looking for is a tangible use. If it's only because it's admins who support WP:IAR, then the category gets deleted, because we all should follow the WP:5P. That includes interpreting WP:IAR. So far I haven't seen anything even close to usefulness as a category, except as a userpage notification. And whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant. To reiterate: Give me something of substance. Otherwise, this is no different than: "Category:Admins who support Wikipedians being WP:CIVIL". (Which would also be deleted, for the same, obvious reasons.) - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're reading what I am saying here. "Not all admins feel that way, some feel process is most important" is a pretty clear justification for the existance of this category. You can argue that all admins should be identical, but they are not. We have some people who are very Willy-Wonka (very process centric) and some people who are very Red Rider (very IAR centric). Unless you're prepared to demand uniformity, knowing who is who is goodness. So a list or a category is a good thing to have. Don't you agree? If not, why not? And... categories are better than lists in this particular usage as already explained. QED. (no personal preference given in this recap of my argument whatever) ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up a point... Any admin put in this category is going to understand the category. Admins in this category are not Wimps... They can stay in it or remove themselves as they desire. That is understood. IMO, you are looking for a solution to a problem where none exists by deleting this category. FloNight 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your perspective on this. And it's "possible" that you're misreading my overall intention, since we are (as we often do in XfD) getting bogged down in details : ) - Read my latest response to Lar, directly above, and perhaps that will clarify. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not facilitate collaboration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duja - don't try defying the CABAL, or else... ;-)--Aldux 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come now, what possible aid in collaboration can we get from this? "Humor." This category simply does not pass the laugh test.--WaltCip 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry WaltCip that you do not Get It. But this category is an important aid to collaboration. I observed the recent induction of an admin into the category. I can assure you that something good happened for this person and Wikipedia that day. This type of humorous interaction between users is part of the culture of Wikipedia. We need to Make More positive interactions between users Not Delete aids to our existing ones. --FloNight 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your sentiment whole heartedly, I don't think that the category is needed for this. The same effects could be "effected" by placing any sort of notice on the user's pages (userbox or otherwise). It would seem to me to achieve the same effect, without the need for a category. However, can you explain further? Perhaps I am missing something. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shows an admin has a sense of humor, and sense. Concur with FloNight that you're looking for a solution to a non-problem. Please go to Wikipedia:Cleanup for problems which actually require attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the description on the category page actually implies a negative thing, and for humour, the Wikipedia page is enough. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Humour is a relatively important part of anything, including Wikipedia. Harmless and humourous; I see no valid reason to delete other than redundancy with the WP page. (Which it isn't, really; WP:ROGUE is informative, and Catergory:Rogue is a category. The two serve similar but separate purposes; that's why the Category: namespace is seperate from the Wikipedia: one. Ourai ^т _с 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a part of our unique culture. What is up with the fears? Good for moral lifting, etc. Reminds me of cutting up in the back of the classroom when we should have been boning up for that test… JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far this is looking to be no consensus or delete, unless you people can provide a point other than "harmless and funny".--WaltCip 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment You may also want to see WP:ILIKEIT. The arguments are either "It's funny", "It's useful", "It's harmless", and "Why don't you deal with the other trash instead of this one." Practically an example of N.G. arguments.--WaltCip 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not funny, divisive (which is somewhat ironic, given the trigger-happy treatment given other such templates and categories on ROUGE/IAR pretexts) and serves no useful purpose in developing or maintaining an encyclopaedia -- quite the reverse. Arguments to keep are both extremely weak, and fundamentally inconsistent -- between broadly, those that (in my view wrongly) regard it as harmless and hilarious BOFH humour, and those that (in my view even more wrongly) regard the BOFH as a good model of sysopping. If those keenest on IAR had a modicum of introspection and consistency, they'd delete this out of hand. Alai 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Keep, Rename Category:Rogue Wikipedia admins. Blarneytherinosaur talk 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine those that crack up at the current version would argue that this would decrease the alleged hilariousness thereof, diminish the trowelling on of the irony, unacceptably reduce the mockery of the notional antagonists of the membership, etc, etc. Alai 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my two cents. I figure if we needed to rename all the sporting cats to include "Wikipedia" or "Users", it might be worth mentioning here. Far be it from me to deminish humour! Blarneytherinosaur talk 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's certainly true, as a "user category" it logically would follow one of those schemes, aside from the rogue/rouge thing. Alai 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators - Another "not" category. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC) [Relisting all the administrator nominations, for further discussion. - jc37 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand why someone wouldn't (it took a long time for me to agree to become one), but it's not something I'd declare.--Mike Selinker 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's their decision what they declare. Not allowing someone the option of saying no seems a little like restricting speech. Bl a st 11.24.06 0149 (UTC -5)
They're still allowed the userbox, or userpage statement, We're just removing the category. (At this point, does anyone else think that we should specifically and distinctly specify this at the top of this page?) - jc37 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dan027 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37 — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and discount keeps - The "NOT" system for listing categories states that there's no point in listing categories that say such things as "Wikipedians who don't have third arms", as we have discussed in the previous CfDs. Also, ad infinitum, this could include an infinite number of people in Wikipedia. The arguments provided for the keeps are unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wikipedians who are content to remain rank-and-file editors. Takes the bitter taste of not out of it. It's a useful category. Er iel hon an 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for those interested in retaining their "user" privileges. -- nae'blis 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not categories such as "Wikipedians who do not like cheese" are stupid, as not liking cheese implies absolutely nothing in the affirmative. Not wanting to be an administrator does imply affirmative statements. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful category that can help avoid wasted efforts asking people if they want to be nominated. --Majorly (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think that the userbox which populates this category is enough? - jc37 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but no reason for deletion. --Majorly (Talk) 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it can be (a reason for deletion). The Wikipedian categories are essentially about fostering collaboration. This category is about division ("I don't want"). Whether it's just a genuine lack of interest, or a sincere statement about how they feel about admins or adminship, doesn't really matter... The category in no way helps towards collaboration, promotes or at least decalares a division. Hope this clarifies : ) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think others have made the case that it does help toward collaboration. Users in this category don't want to be harassed about becoming admins, they just want to edit. That does not promote division, it helps avoid giving needless offense. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a notice on a userpage does that. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useful category. Rename if you like but knowing who does not want to be an admin is useful, and categories are more useful than lists. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And lists have advantages over categories... See WP:CLS. - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and make the case that in this case a list is better, then. WP:CLS isn't policy last I checked, and maybe it needs some work to boot, in reading it over I found a fair bit to disagree with. IF that case is valid, and you let us know when you've populated such a list and publicised to the users that are in this category that there is a list and they need to maintain their membership in it, I'll change my thinking, in this case. But you haven't made the case that a list is better than a category in this case yet that I can see. By default, the category is a better choice (c.f. the MANY AfD's against lists that merely say "category exists" as their argument for deleting the list, which then carries and the list is deleted). Also, are you conceding there's a need for either a list or a category by saying a list is better? Or are you doing the defense in depth of "my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" that lawyers use? ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"my client is innocent because he wasn't in town but if he was in town, he wasn't in the room, but if he was in the room, someone else did it, but if he did it, he had reason to do it" - I may have to quote you... That made me laugh out loud : ) - Oh and I've responded to this same line of questioning above in the other admin nominations, though I suppose I can repeat it here (again)if you would like. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category name does not imply "bitterness" or anything of the sort. There are plenty of users who probably do not want the weight of admin responsibility, not out of bitterness, but just because that's who they are. In fact, at least at the moment, I consider myself one of those people. Even if I could become an admin, I wouldn't want to. The category is both useful and non-divisive. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is a grouping of wikipedians who express that choice, useful? (They still can declare that choice through a comment on their talk page, or a userbox, etc.) - jc37 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are nice and visible at the very bottom of a user page. Talk page messages and userboxes get overlooked. That's how it is useful ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: "whether you state something at the top (linked statement) or the bottom (linked category) of your userpage is absolutely irrelevant." And for that matter, nothing from stopping you from placing such a link at the bottom of your userpage as well. If the only arguement is "because it's a userpage notice", then my comment is "Strong Delete", because categories shouldn't be used only for that purpose. - jc37 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with that argument (and, yes, you do seem to be using the lawyerly defense in depth here, when one argument is refuted, you pop up with another one) is that ANYTHING can be done a different way. that something CAN be done a different way does not mean that it SHOULD be done. Having a representation category at the very bottom of your userpage is a useful attribute that cannot be achieved any other way. You can put it CLOSE to the bottom, but not IN the category section. Is this the strongest argument in favour? no. But it's one you cannot counter by saying "you can achieve it another way". For if that were true, we could well delete every template. Everything a template achieves CAN be done another way. And that's an absurd idea, isn't it? For much ease of use results from using templates... ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Lawyerly defense"? Apparently I see this discussion differently than you do. I think I've stated my reasons for the nomination rather clearly by now. What you apprently see as "lawyerly defense", I see as "responding to your comments". Or in other words, "discussing" : ) - And it isn't because it can "be done another way", it's because we shouldn't merely use categories as notices. A page link is enough. Categories are groupings, which also act as links to those groupings. As I said, if your "arguement" (your word) is that you want the category kept because you see it useful as a "page link", then my answer is "Strong and Speedy Delete". - jc37 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories: Eventualist Wikipedians | Inclusionist Wikipedians | Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion | Structurist Wikipedians | WikiProject Comics members | WikiProject Greyhawk participants | WikiProject Middle-earth participants | Wikipedians who read Tolkien | WikiProject Star Wars members | Wikipedians who participate in the Comics Collaboration of the Month | Wikipedians who participate in the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week are the categories I see at the bottom of your user page. That's a shedful. Aren't all those categories things that you could just as easily note via a comment? Could they all be lists instead? Why did you add yourself to those categories? So that people could find you easily, right? Or was it some other reason? Whatever reason you give, applies here too (and to all the other categories you've nommed), once it is shown they are useful distinctions to make. What I mean when I say Lawyerly defense is that when I show that it's a useful distinction, you argue that it doesn't need to be a category, and when I show why it needs to be a category, you argue that it isn't a useful distinction. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's take those each, step by step:
The "-ist" categories - Among several other things, these are part of a media wiki structure. See: m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. They also may be used as a part of scientific research. (See m:Wikiresearch.) So I think there is a good chance that they pass the bar as "useful".

The WikiProject participants/members are very clearly an awesome example of usefulness by collaboration. As are the "Collaboration of the Week/Month".

"...who read Tolkien" - The various "Wikipedian by interest" categories follow the same pattern. it's a grouping of people who are interested in a topic, therefore, one may presume that they may know "something" about that topic, and as such should be helpful in collaboration.

The "Wikipedians who support..." some Wikipedian cause or issue - These are useful as groupings so that those who are discussing the issue , or in the process of writing up an essay/guideline/whatever on the issue, may find others who are also interested in the issue, and just like the other "Wikipedians by interest" categories, we presume that such people should have at least some modicum of knowledge (and of course, interest) about said topic, and thus may also be interested in collaboration.

The point to them all, is that there is a point to the grouping: useful collaboration of some type. So how does this category qualify? It's actually a category of "Wikipedians who would rather not collaborate as administrators". Which is perfectly fine, except that there is no need for the grouping. Wikipedian categories should exist to be a notice and grouping. As I mentioned above, if it's "notice only", then I suggest delete, since a "notice" is all that's needed. - jc37 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was just about to ask a user whether s/he wanted to be an admin sometime, and found this cat at the bottom of their page. Seems useful enough, and not everybody likes userboxes. riana_dzasta 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One can transclude, link, or even just type a comment on a userpage without the need for a userbox. - jc37 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... do you not like the cat, or the ubx? :) riana_dzasta 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, "like" doesn't have anything to do with it : ) - Second, I was responding to the comment: "...and not everybody likes userboxes." - In other words, just because someone doesn't like userboxes, doesn't mean that they have no way to be able to express themselves besides the (mis-)use of a category. - jc37 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, not everyone likes userboxes, different from other "negative" categories because it implies an affirmative (wishing to only remain an ordinary editor,) etc. Grand master ka 08:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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