Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/February 2008#Wikipedians by radio talk shows

: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 - That said, I'm going to list this on the /working page as a speedy rename to add the word "Wikipedian", per long convention. - jc37 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Usernames editors have expressed concern over}}

At minimum, this category needs a rename, since it is not categorizing user names, it is categorizing the users themselves. Additionally, however, I'm not entirely sure this category is useful at all. Users are automatically added to this category when Template:uw-username is added to their page. There is no indication what the requirements are for a user to legitimately "express concern" over a username, nor any indication that the category is actually ever used to find users to username block. The policy on usernames says to bring concerning usernames to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which I think is a much better solution than adding them to this category. Additionally, the category has become large and unwieldy due to users in the category who actually are blocked not being removed, so using the category to find people to block is a shot in the dark. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, or rename to :Category:Wikipedians with usernames editors have expressed concern over if no consensus to delete, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I agree that WP:UAA is a more practical solution for reasons put forth above. --Kbdank71 14:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but reform. Nominator seems to have misunderstood the purpose of this category. It is not for users that are to be blocked. Instead, the {{tlx|uw-username}} template is used for usernames that are not blatant enough to be reported to WP:UAA, but where discussion is needed. The purpose of this category is to keep track of usernames where discussion has started, and after a reasonable period of time, either mark the concern as relieved or report the user to WP:RFCN. However, this category is not working because, as VegaDark says, blocked users and users where concern is relieved are not removed from the category. But this is not a problem with the category itself, but the way it is used. I therefore propose that the category be kept, and a note be posted to WT:U reminding people to remove blocked names (probably a bot can be set up to do this). Is he back? (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that User:DusterBot is supposed to remove blocked users from this category, but it stopped working in October. I will notify the bot owner. Is he back? (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::*If all the "dealt with" users were out of the category, so only those who have had the template on their page for less than 5 days were listed, then it could indeed make the category managable and possibly useful. It would still need a rename, however. Do you oppose renaming? VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*I'm not firmly opposed to a rename, but I don't really see the need either. Note that there are several bots that use this category, including DusterBot (see above) and the HBC AIV helperbots who identify users in this category that are reported to UAA, in order to inform admins that discussion has been attempted. If consensus is that a rename is required, this should be checked with the bot owners to make sure that the rename does not break any bots. But then again, it seems that the rename is only for semantic reasons and I don't think it is really necessary. Is he back? (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Is he back?. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for entertainment value. Funny names.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep useful category. If DusterBot doesen't come back up soon, I'd be willing to look at creating a replacement. SQL^{Query me!} 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - UAA can only really be used for blatantly inappropriate or promotional usernames. Granted there's a few accounts on that list that could probably go right to UAA straight away, but there are many on there who aren't. If anything, it's useful for keeping an eye on potential joke names. SMC (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's very useful for keeping an eye on usernames which aren't quite inappropriate enough for reporting to WP:UAA. EJF (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians interested in radio}}

:Note: This is a group nomination of :Category:Wikipedians interested in radio and its subcategories. Detailed nomination rationales for the subcategories are offered below.

:Nominator's rationale: This category is too vague to be useful for encyclopedic collaboration – indeed, it is too vague to be useful as anything other than a parent category. "Radio" can refer to the "medium of wireless communication" in general, specific radio technologies, the activity of radio broadcasting, specific radio broadcasts, radio frequencies, the electronic device, and a host of other things. Since there is no reason to expect that an interest in one implies an interest the others, the category effectively fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains.

• If all subcategories are deleted, then delete; if all subcategories are not deleted, then depopulate of user pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support the above. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and let people choose how specific they wish to be. DGG (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate, keep as a parent category if any of the subcategories remain. If not, delete as empty, but allow recreation as a parent category if suitable subcategories are ever created (currently I would support deleting all subcategories, but I could support keeping some subcategories if they had an "interested in" naming convention). VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete parent category and all subcategories. None of them helps users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Are you new here? That's obviously not true. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::*I've been here about a year longer than you have, and it obviously is true. User categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Then you're just blind. This isn't something "in theory", it's something that actually happens on a daily bases. I've contacted other editors via such categories, and I've been contacted via similar categories. Facts would suggest that your generalization that all user cats are useless is wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::::*Thanks for the personal attack. Arguing with people is so much easier when they undermine themselves. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Angr. I'm interested in lots of things, watch many tv shows and listen to different radio shows, none of which I have an interest in writing about. --Kbdank71 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep either as a parent category, or as a non-detailed interest category per DGG. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• 20 days later... I don't whether this discussion is a difficult one to close or whether it's just escaped notice for such a long time. In any case, in the hope of restarting the process (or the conversation), I'm posting a brief recap of the discussion (if I inaccurately or inadequately represent one or more arguments, please modify my comments as necessary and feel free to hurl a fish or two in my direction -- I prefer salmon, by the way.)
• :Of 7 participants, 2 support straightforward deletion, 3 support deletion contingent on deletion of the subcats (see the nominations below), and 2 oppose deletion. The arguments offered include:
• :For deleting
• ::does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration or help users to write an encyclopedia - reasons vary but include:
• :::"too vague to be useful ... fails to tell us anything specific about the users it contains"
• :::"user categories do nothing to assist encyclopedia-building"
• :::interest in something, watching a TV programme, or listening to a radio show does not translate into an interesting in writing about these subjects
• :For keeping
• ::editors should be allowed to "choose how specific they wish to be"
• :Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• ::Well, some of the subcategories are now on deletion review, so I don't know if this can be closed until that is over. If that closes as endorse, this looks like a pretty clear delete. If it closes as overturn and relist, then this will likely have to wait even longer to be closed until after the relisted categories get closed. *yawn* VegaDark (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• :::If the DRV results in "relist", I suggest they be subcats of :Category:Wikipedians by radio series (which I just created). :Category:Wikipedians interested in radio should be a parent cat, if kept at all. That said, I think a parent of a different name may be in order. (See: Serial (radio and television) for more information.) So either way, I support depopulation (and possibly deletion) of :Category:Wikipedians interested in radio. - jc37 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. east.718 at 04:19, March 1, 2008

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Car Talk - zero-user, single-article (Car Talk) category

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern - (The Howard Stern Show)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Le Show - single-user, single-article (Le Show) category

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and the Mad Dog - single-article category (Mike and the Mad Dog)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Mike and Mike in the Morning - single-article category (Mike and Mike in the Morning)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Nobody Likes Onions - single-user, single-article (Nobody Likes Onions) category

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Opie and Anthony - single-article category (Opie and Anthony)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Rush Limbaugh - (The Rush Limbaugh Show)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Ed Schultz Show - single-user, single-article (The Ed Schultz Show) category

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Herd - single-article category (The Herd with Colin Cowherd)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Iain Lee Show - single-user category, lacks a corresponding article (The Iain Lee Show, Iain Lee Show), the show is mentioned in the Iain Lee biographical article

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Stephanie Miller Show - single-article category (The Stephanie Miller Show)

:Nominator's rationale: The collaborative potential of these categories, if any, is in most cases limited to one article only. Moreover, it is questionable whether merely listening to a radio talk show implies any type of above-average ability or desire to improve articles about these shows. Knowledge of what was said on a talk show, which is the type of knowledge that is most likely to be gained from listening to the show, is not especially useful in an encyclopedic context, for two reasons. First, additions based on such knowledge are likely to be minor trivia -- although there will be exceptions. Second, per WP:UNDUE, articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". That is, that something was stated on a radio talk show should be mentioned in an article only if reliable sources deem it noteworthy, irrespective of how important, interesting, or controversial an individual user thinks it to be. In the end, the knowledge that matters is knowledge of and access to these reliable sources, not knowledge of the transcript of a talk show.

• Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - Not a whole lot I could add to that, so I'll just say "per nom" : ) - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all These categories are not useful for collaboration in any way, unlike the network categories below. Horologium (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, and my comments above. --Kbdank71 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. east.718 at 04:20, March 1, 2008

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue - (I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue}

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Just a Minute - (Just a Minute)

:Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

• Delete both as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I think that these are similar to those who watch game shows, noting though that the former is a parody, and both are comedic. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both - Categorizing by "who listens" simply does not translate to "interested in collaborating on". Additionally, the scope seems too narrow for a category. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per above. --Kbdank71 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show - (The Goon Show)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to the Navy Lark - (The Navy Lark)

::Category:Wikipedians who listen to Round the Horne - (Round the Horne)

:Nominator's rationale: Same as for "Wikipedians by radio talk shows".

• Delete all as nominator. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - If we keep TV series, then we should keep these. Same reasons, same rationales. We shouldn't discriminate by media type. - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - While I agree with jc37 that it might create a double standard to delete these but keep the TV series categories, I fully support deleting (or renaming) all the tv series categories, so I have no proplem with dealing with these first. Additionally the TV categories will have articles on individual episodes to collaborate on, which the radio shows will not have, so I'm not even entirely convinced that if we have those we should keep these. VegaDark (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 by User:East718. VegaDark (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who are critical of Christianity}}

Potentially divisive, "not" category, lots of precedent to delete. Listing in speedy for another admin to confirm. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This seems to be more a "Support/Oppose" cat. Should probably be moved to main nomination section. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: A nonsense category, per nom. seicer | talk | contribs 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as divisive; this will not help build the encyclopedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy as per other similar catgs deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors}}

Not helpful to Wikipedia to categorize this. The userbox is sufficient to convey this information. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Xbox Ambassadors have shown themselves to be willing to assist other Xbox users with problems and having a category for those looking for assistance that may have to do with both Xbox and Wikipedia is worthwhile. the category has utility, moreso than many other user-affiliation categories. furthermore, nominator has not proved disutility. xenocidic (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Don't care anymore. Whatever BlackFalcon decides. xenocidic (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. A userbox is sufficient for this. There's no need to clutter up WP with redundant or useless categories that are not wholly relevant to WP. Seicer (t | c) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:*The same argument could be made against {{lc|Rouge_editors}}. 'clutter' argument fails Wikipedia:PERFORMANCE. xenocidic (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (incidentally, I intend to nominate that category shortly). As for WP:PERFORMANCE, it makes an argument about server space and server performance only; however, clutter also impedes the ability of human editors to navigate through and make use of user categories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Yes, I'm aware my argument was a logical fallacy. It was also an argumentum ad hominem, but you missed the bonus points for that one. =) xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::::*Ah, I missed that. :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*:Category:Rogue editors actually came about from a mess at ANI over Category:Rogue Administrators. Seicer (t | c) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is essentially a form of "Wikipedians by gaming website". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) - rationale changed Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Not quite. Xbox Ambassadors are hand picked by Microsoft staff. xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::*My impression of Xbox Ambassadors, after having read the relevant section in the main article, is that they are the equivalents of Wikipedia administrators: "hand picked community members" who are supposed to be "helpful towards other ... members and are willing to assist new ... users". That is, their designation is more likely to reflect their experience, commitment, and personality than any subject-specific knowledge. Is that not (mostly) accurate? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Mostly, but they do have working knowledge of Xbox 360, Xbox Live, and Microsoft support channels. xenocidic (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::::*By "working knowledge", do you mean knowledge needed to operate a Xbox 360 and work in/with Xbox Live or knowledge that could be relevant to making non-original research contributions to articles? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::*Being Xbox Ambassadors they are much more in touch with the Xbox "scene" than run-of-the-mill Xbox users would be. Wikipedians who are also Xbox Ambassadors are very likely to contribute relevantly to articles, which is why I humbly maintain the category is worthwhile. xenocidic (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::*Thanks for the clarification. I'll need a little time to think about this, and I will post back here. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::*Thank you for listening to my arguments. I respect whatever decision you make in this matter. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::*After reviewing [http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/ambassadors/default.htm this] page, I still support deletion, although for a diffrent reason. While I can see how this type of categorisation could hypothetically be useful in some cases, I don't feel that this type of category is a good way of categorising users with the ability and/or desire to contribute to articles related to Xbox. It seems to me that "Wikipedians by alternate website status" are too prone to categorisation-for-identification as opposed to categorisation-for-collaboration, and would support independent creation of a more directly collaboration-oriented (e.g. interest) category for Xbox. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom and Black Falcon. The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I was under the impression that these are not supposed to be votes, but a venue for building consensus. If you have nothing at all to add to the discussion, why bother? xenocidic (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Comment So you have to participate in the discussion to comment on deletion, when the points have already been made? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*It's not a vote. If you have nothing to add, then there's no reason to comment. It's unhelpful. xenocidic (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone above. In addition to that there is a genuine problem here. Your arguments basically amount to "we were hand-picked by X organization or company hence we should have a user category to locate each other". That is fundamentally wrong. I don't have a problem with a category for users interested in Xbox but this isn't it. No one is stopping you from contributing to Wikipedia regardless of the category, you don't need it so we don't need to make an exception. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment: Xbox Ambassadors are, by their very nature, interested in Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of performing the actions required to be selected. on a related note, Interesting quote by nominator -

{{cquote|User categories should exist for the purpose of finding others, not for the purpose of self identification.}}

:::(source). By their own words, the nominator seems to support this category. xenocidic (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Finding others for a Wikipedia-furthering purpose, is what the implication was. I don't believe this category does that (although I would support a category called "Wikipedians interested in Xbox" or something similar). VegaDark (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. Having read up on usercats, I am beginning to see the reason why this usercat might not qualify for the proposal and have changed my vote to "don't care anymore". It was a fun argument, while it lasted. No hard feelings. xenocidic (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

::*You are missing the point. This category serves one purpose only, to allow people hand-picked by Microsoft as ambassadors to find each other. Any other purpose can be achieved through a broader category. No thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Too myspace for a encyclopedia.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment Dozens of myspacian listings, but you comment only on the Xbox 360-related ones? Thanks for your input "Playstation" dude. xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who like Xbox 360}}

Most people "like" Xbox 360 i'd imagine. Not helpful to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep is you wanna delete this you better delete all other "Wikipedians who like" categories. This is an outrage. --123Pie (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:*That is not exactly true, although many have been deleted (see here). It's all a matter of how much of a relationship there seems to be between a particular "like" and an interest in improving the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Wikipedian's who like Xbox 360 are very likely to improve Xbox 360 related articles. xenocidic (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*That statement must assume either that any random like can translate into an encyclopedically-relevant interest or that there is something special about Xbox 360. I personally don't feel that either assumption is justified (e.g. I like luxury cars, yet I'm not at all likely to improve articles related to luxury cars). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per drive-by nomination with dubious justification. xenocidic (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, If this get change from like to have, can it stay? --Pie's can talk! 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:*That would introduce miscategorization problems (people who like the 360 might not own one). I don't see why this category needs deleted in the first place, let's let the CFD run its' course. xenocidic (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - a grouping of users who like an admittedly nifty piece of electronic equipment does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. People like many objects, including Xbox 360s, luxury cars, gold watches, jewelry, expensive laptops, but it does not help to create groupings of users on the basis of these likes. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Would the same argument not apply to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_who_watch ? But in those, you only proposed renamed. xenocidic (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Perhaps, perhaps not. More than anything, that was a procedural nomination, and it's possible that I'll later nominate one or more of those categories for deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not an extension of MySpace. What will we have next? Those who like the Nintendo Wii? Computers? Halo? A Butterfinger's candy bar? The list can go on, and we'd be stuck with hundreds of trivial categories that do not add value to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Seicer (t | c) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, it was meant to be so Xbox users can find other Xbox users and ask for help, as wikipedians are serposed to help. --Pie's can talk! 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:*For general help regarding questions unrelated to Wikipedia, there is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. However, in general, we don't (and shouldn't) maintain lists of users for reasons that are unrelated to building the encyclopedia. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Per Seicer (t | c) and per nom. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, gives me a list of people to track down and shoot their Xboxen with my Three Ring Ray of Doom. I'm kidding, of course, this isn't a useful category. Editors who need to discuss 360-related articles will naturally find each other via the talk pages. Sockatume (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Too myspace for a encyclopedia.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per CSD C1 (empty category) and CSD G7 (author request). The category (and userbox) creator emptied the category and consented to deletion at the category talk page. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians interested in Meher Baba}}

Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual, categorizing by individual is too narrow for collaboration. Possibly redundant to :Category:Wikipedians who follow Meher Baba. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, just because it's "one person" doesn't mean anything one way or another. {{tl|Meher Baba}} alone suggests that this is a perfectly good user category, and is not too narrow for collaboration. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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: see below. There are three main issue at stake: purpose, scope and WP:POINT.

I don't think that anyone disputes that this category does not (directly, at least) facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. In fact, it is marked as a humour category. Given that there is precedent for retaining some humour pages, the question then becomes whether this should be such a case. Without making any judgment on that point specifically, I do wish to note two points:

1. When it comes to categories (as opposed to, say, user pages or pages in the Wikipedia namespace), there is fairly consistent precedent against humour categories (see various discussions linked here).
2. A humour page is effective only if it is generally perceived to be humorous; such a page is not likely to be appropriate if it is a source of controversy, ill will, disruption, or anything else that hurts the encyclopedia or detracts from an atmosphere of collaboration. With this category, there is no consensus that it does not have any negative side-effects.

Various discussions (at UCFD and MFD) have produced a relatively consistent consensus that Wikipedia is not appropriate for random humour that is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. It's safe to say that this catgory is Wikipedia-related, as it was created in response to a specific incident that took place on Wikipedia. This brings us to the third issue...

This category was created in response to a specific incident which involved a certain degree of controversy, hostility, and/or bitterness, and there is no question that it was created to make a point. Whether it is actively disruptive in the process of making this point can be disputed to some extent; however:

1. The point made by the category targets (comments made by) a single user, and said user has expressed dissatisfaction with the existence of this category.
2. In continuing to make a point, the category perpetuates the dispute/conflict/incident. This is most certainly unproductive.

Thus, considering all of these factors together, the result is delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX}}

Now that the rouge admins category is dealt with, I think this can safely be nominated. WP:POINT creation during that discussion that serves no purpose towards encyclopedia building. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for as long as there are editors or admins who haven't read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Aids encyclopædia building by reminding people to read what is on the screen before leaping to judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Junk. – Steel 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Nonsense. Seicer (t | c) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. The category that resulted in the creation of this POINTy cat is gone now, and this should disappear as well. Horologium (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as insulting nonsense and per WP:POINT. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I must admit that I am wondering what disruption this category causes... -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to "...FREAKING BIG HUGE PURPLE BOX" (doesn't really flow presently). xenocidic (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep You can't violate WP:POINT without making a disruption (making a point alone is fine). -- Ned Scott 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ned. Making a point isn't the point of WP:POINT to prohibit :) Only a disruptive action, taken only to make a point, is what WP:POINT prohibits. The mere existence of a category doesn't disrupt anything, unless it's overtly offensive to a specific group or some similar problem, but this doesn't seem to have any such issue. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:22, 27 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Mostly harmless. There are bigger fish to fry. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Is having this category causing a problem? WP:POINT is not violated because there is no disruption. Alexfusco⁵ 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this childish nonsense; the encyclopedia is that way. -_- krimpet✽ 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ha. Best rationale ever. I'm convinced. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:24, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play Rövarspråket}}

Single article category, hence pointless to have a category for. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - collaborative potential, if any, is limited to one article only: Rövarspråket. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. east.718 at 04:22, March 1, 2008

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who try not to worry}}

Useless, lots of past precedent to delete similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - random, miscellaneous sentiment (see precedent). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as no content, no users are in the Category. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• From the talk page of the category: "I created this page. However, I am okay with it being deleted. I already removed the destination from the user box that pointed to it. Thank you. Tommytocker (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)", thus might qualify for WP:CSD#G7. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:Speedy Rename :Category:Wikipedians who liked The Dukes of Hazzard to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Dukes of Hazzard liked > like. - jc37 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. WODUP (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

:Speedy Rename :Category:Wikipedians who liked The Waltons to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Waltons liked > like. - jc37 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I support the rename if the category is to remain, this is a single-user category whose scope is limited to two articles (The Waltons and List of The Waltons episodes) and thus could be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Would you be willing to modify your comment to "Delete, without prejudice for recreation, should there be more collaborative material on the topic, or more Wikipedian interest in the catgeory"? - jc37 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::*I'm perfectly OK with that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above (the same logic could probably be used for many other tv show categories), rename per nom if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Trivial category. Seicer (t | c) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Television series aren't limited to just the show and its episodes (or character pages/lists). And being a series, means that there is more possible contribution material, than one may find for a stand alone show (or a "talk show" for that matter). Someone interested in the show may also be interested in contributing on the actors' articles. (Such as Richard Thomas.) Also, there is the potential for expansion per other TV series articles. (One person's "cruft" is another person's article. The debate continues on...) Just looking over the main article, I see several places for exansion (the later movies, or the new series, for example). - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Would have prefered not to close this as I participated, but it is unanimous and lack of administrators active here makes it necessary. VegaDark (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who hate Television - "not" category. Long precedent for deletion. See also WP:UBX#User categories. Populated by User:Blacklemon67/Notliketv. (Which is a prime candidate for MfD itself.) - jc37 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Too much precedent for this to end up as anything but delete without deletion review overturning this precedent, which is doubtful. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Trivial category. Seicer (t | c) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per overwhelming precedent. Horologium (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't need it --BLACKLEMON-67 yay! (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Unless I am mistaken, there are no users in this category. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: speedy delete - was only seeded from a template that has been deleted. --slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who believe in Hetero marriage - "Support/Oppose issue" category, and at the same time, close to being a "Wikipedians by sexual preference", both of which have been repeatedly deleted in the past. - jc37 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - and this improves collaboration and isn't just a random category... how? David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's funny how everyone is avoiding the more serious issue, but it definitely should go. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians on Erasmus - See ERASMUS programme:

:* "The aim of the ERASMUS Programme is to encourage and support academic mobility of higher education students and teachers within the European Union, the European Economic Area countries of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway as well as candidate countries such as Turkey."

:* "The ERASMUS Programme, together with a number of other independent programmes, was incorporated into the Socrates programme when that programme was established in 1995. The Socrates programme ended on 31 December 1999 and was replaced with the Socrates II programme on 24 January 2000. That, in turn, was replaced by the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013 as from 1 January 2007."

:So essentially, this single-article cat was an "all-inclusive" cat for any student of "higher learning" from the European Union.

:However, it's also now a defunct programme, that's been subsumed by several others. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Erasmus is still the name used for it - its brand as it were - and it is know by that name. It is not about higher learning in general, it is an exchange programme. And further more it is not a normal exchange programme given its design to make it much easier, provide large support grants for students and its cultural impact (the film L'Auberge espagnole, the culture surrounding the programme such as "erasmus parties" and its use usage (compulsory for some courses) across the continent. I'm afraid jc37 has misunderstood the nature of the programme.- J Logan ^t: 11:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• :Even with that explanation, I'm still looking for how this helps contribution, rather than just interest in a single article (or possibly 2). It seems to me that a userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Oh like any of them help contribution, what about :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T or :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College? Not really the point behind them.- J Logan ^t: 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. As for :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Groep T and :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Colorado College, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep. They should be deleted too. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::Fair enough, so long as there are no double standards, getting rather tired of them.- J Logan ^t: 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. I'm also going to go ahead and list :Category:Wikipedians who like geometry and :Category:Wikipedians who like algebra as renames on the working page, as I feel this is an uncontroversial name change. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rename :Category:Wikipedians who like trigonometry to :Category:Wikipedians interested in trigonometry - jc37 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename - as nom. - jc37 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. After considering the userbox and the subject, I think this is one of the rare cases where "who like" can be renamed to "interested in" without any substantial risk of miscategorisation. By the way, I think there is a similarly-named category for geometry... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, and consider tagging and adding to this nomination both :Category:Wikipedians who like geometry and :Category:Wikipedians who like algebra. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• :Fine with me. If so, this should be relisted to that date. Else feel free to nom those two in a separate nom. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Are you even playing attention? -- Ned Scott 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Yes, I am. I know this category was brought here for a name change, but I'd rather just have it deleted. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians who like Rome to :Category:Wikipedians who like Rome (TV series). - jc37 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename as nom. - jc37 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy rename - Seems straightforward. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 without prejudice. If we have a future influx of Faroese editors, fair enough, but a one-editor category is pointless. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in the Faroe Islands - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. - jc37 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think this category could be useful for obtaining images of places or people in the Faroe Islands, but the single user in the category has not edited in about 4 months (see here)... If deleted, I think it should be without prejudice to recreation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice to recreation - Only one user and less than 50,000 population, which has been the standard to delete so far. Perhaps isolated locations like islands should be exempt from this standard, though? If that is determined, then allow recreation if more than one user is in the category within 5 days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The category could potentially foster collaboration, although it has only one user now. But deleting the category wouldn't achieve anything useful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Black Falcon. However, a word of caution is required here. People in the Faroe Islands generally do not want to be categorized as Danes for historical and political reasons that we should respect so no prejudice to recreation if more active Faroese Wikipedians want a category. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation, per above. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and promote population. The only way people will be added is if they know the category exists. Deleting does not make sense with that in mind. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 without prejudice to recreation if more than a single Wikipedian joins the category within a few days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Espoo - single Wikipedian cat. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. - jc37 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• While this is a single-user cat, Espoo is the second-largest city in Finland and so perhaps merits a distinct category. However, since the sole user in the category is inactive (see contributions history) ... weak delete without prejudice to recreation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as single user category, but without prejudice to recreation if it gets more than one user in the category within 5 days of recreation. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Black Falcon. Horologium (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation, per above. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Only one user uses the category, so it is kind of 'lonely'. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and promote population. The only way people will be added is if they know the category exists. Deleting does not make sense with that in mind. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who are Cajuns to :Category:Cajun Wikipedians

:Speedy rename to match the convention of :Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• :Category:Wikipedians who listen to BBC Radio 4
• :Category:Wikipedians who listen to NPR
• :Category:Wikipedians who listen to Sirius Satellite Radio
• :Category:Wikipedians who listen to Air America Radio
• :Category:Wikipedians who listen to ESPN Radio - single-user category

These types of categories do not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station does not imply possession of an above-average desire or ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. (These categories could even include people who casually listen to the radio while driving or jogging.) See related precedents here, here and here.

• Delete all as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. These cats, unlike previous cats I have voted to delete, are nationwide stations or networks, rather than single-market stations, and there are related categories (programs, personalities) associated with them. For example, it is likely that someone who listens to NPR can contribute to National Public Radio and at least one of the many programs on that network, such as All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Marketplace, Car Talk (which is a single-member subcat), or the multitude of other programs. The same could be said of Air America Radio or BBC Radio 4; AAR, in particular, is likely to have listeners who listen to more than one program on the network. The ESPN category contains two daughter categories (for specific programs), with more than a single user in each (each contains a discrete list, with some overlap), which is a valid use of sub-categorization. Sirius is a bit different; there is little to no relationship between the various channels offered by Sirius other than their medium of transmission. I suspect that most of the editors in this category listen to only one channel or program on Sirius (Howard Stern), which limits the utility of the category for collaboration, as they are interested only in Stern, not in Sirius or any of its other offerings. Horologium (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• : I don't know. I think that that's a hard sell. If I were to "tune in", and listen to a single show, once a week, that technically makes me a listener of the station, even though I'm only interested in the single show. And what really makes this not work is syndication. If I only listen to Dr. Demento (interesting that the show is merged to the person's article), to what should I attribute my interest in the show? Westwood One? The individual station? No. Seems to vague, and too broad to be useful. - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::My experience with listeners of NPR and Air America (I have friends who listen to each, to my consternation) is that they are very committed to their networks, and tend to listen to multiple programs on whichever network they favor. I don't want to mis-characterize their audiences, but they tend to be a bit more enthusiastic than listeners to Dr. Demento or other syndicated radio programs. Much as many fans of Rush Limbaugh or Coast to Coast AM are not just casual listeners, AAR attracts a fairly hardcore crowd, and they tend to be fairly knowledgeable about the network and its personalities. This interest in multiple shows under the network banner is what makes the categories possibly useful, unlike Dr. Demento, which is a single show syndicated to a small ad hoc collection of stations, rather than through a full-fledged national network. The same holds true for almost all of the other talkers, whose shows are syndicated individually; the networks offer entire integrated packages of shows. Horologium (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm thinking also of their television counterparts, such as NBC. Just because I may watch The West Wing, doesn't mean I'm knowledgeable about NBC, or (more importantly) interested whatsoever in collaborating/contributing to the NBC article or any of its related articles, save those which have to do with The West Wing. I see the same problem with the radio networks above. Do you disagree? - jc37 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::TV networks are a bit different, as most people watch shows from multiple networks. My interest in Top Chef does not translate to an interest in Bravo, or to NBC Universal, its parent. However, as I noted above, NPR and AAR have devoted followings. I have a good friend who seldom listens to any radio station other than NPR unless he is with friends who don't care for it; another friend didn't listen to the radio at all until an AAR affiliate sprang up near him, and it is the only station to which he listens. The networks grouped above have a more clearly defined focus than, say, Wikipedians who listen to Clear Channel stations or Wikipedians who watch CBS programs, which are somewhat arbitrary groupings, because their only connection is based on ownership (who owns the transmitters), while there tends to be a cohesive, thematic grouping for PBS and AAR. (I am leaving the others out because I have little experience of knowledge of them; I have never had access to BBC4, and don't know much about ESPN. I've already addressed Sirius, which I can support deleting, as it is a grouping similar to the Clear Channel and CBS examples I provided above.) They are not single show groupings (such as the Limbaugh example I noted earlier (which has since been nominated for deletion), so there is a possibility of collaboration that doesn't exist with single-show categories. I am not strongly wedded to my argument, though, and I won't grieve if consensus runs against me here. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 on alternatives for "maintain". Rename "Uruguayan" to "Uruguay". - jc37 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguayan Portal to :Category:Wikipedians who maintain the Uruguay Portal

:Speedy rename to replace the adjective ("Uruguayan") with the noun ("Uruguay"). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The userbox shown in the category says the user "contributes" to the Uruguayan portal, so I wonder if "who maintain" is the best naming convention we should have for portal categories. I'm thinking "who contribute to" or something else would be better. That being said, it may be a good idea to move this to the main section for further discussion. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Moved to dated section. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• :Support renaming the portal cats to "...who contribute to...". - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• ::Also support renaming the portal cats to "...who maintain...", per below. (See how more discussion can make a person waffle between options? : ) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think "who maintain" is a better standard, since an editor can make minor contributions to portal pages (e.g. updating links) without really being actively involved in maintaining the portal. Also, the userbox for Portal:Energy (see here) uses the word "maintain"... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:*But is categorizing such users helpful? I think it would be more helpful to categorize those who contribute, not simply maintain a portal. If we do want to categorize those who maintain portals, does that mean we should have an additional category for those who do more than simply maintain them? I prefer "who contribute to" to "who maintain", but there may yet be a better naming convention I haven't thought of. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Grouping users who maintain a portal creates a collaboration-oriented category, but I'm not sure how helpful it is on its own, since anyone wanting to contact such a user could just leave a message on the portal's talk page. (I suppose that the same could be said of WikiProject membership categories...) My concern with the "who contribute" wording is its ambiguity: does it refer to editors who make minor fixes (e.g. spelling, code) to portal pages, who write the articles that are displayed by portals, or who create a portal's subpages? The first group doesn't seem worth categorising, the second is fairly broad and undefined (one can write articles that fall under the scope of several portals without being involved with any of them), and the third could fall under a general interpretation of "who maintain". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename as per nom. Once a portal is created, it is something that is maintained, which is why I support "maintain". Aligning the category with the name of the Portal is also a good idea, and it is something that Black Falcon has diligently pursued across a wide range of user categories. Horologium (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia, or even maintain a portal. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who enjoy false-colour astronomy representations}}

:Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, seems to be limited essentially to one article only: false-colour. Moreover, it is questionable whether the message conveyed by the userbox that populates this category (Template:User FalseColour) has any clear relationship to encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject of false-colour astronomy representations (i.e. an interest in improving articles related to the subject).

• Delete as nominator; if kept, rename to :Category:Wikipedians who like false-colour astronomy representations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per this discussion. While the userbox text is weak to support this, such Wikipedians could be helpful in creation/editing photos/graphics/images. - jc37 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:*How do you come to that conclusion from a category grouping people who simply proclaim to enjoy the aesthetic value of a particular type of picture? I see nothing from that discussion that leads me to believe that any collaboration potential mentioned is anything more than imagined. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::* Perhaps I'm incorrect, but interest in the topic would appear to lend itself to interest in making. (Indeed, who has even heard of the term outside those who are involved in their production, or those who have discussed this here? : ) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Someone could have stumbled upon the category, wondered what it was, saw a picture and went "cool!" and added themselves to the category. "Who enjoy" is the dealbreaker for me here. That in any category name is doubtful to support collaboration IMO. As named, I don't think it is necessarily safe to assume the users within could help create such images. VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Would have prefered not to close this as I participated, but it is unanimous and lack of administrators active here makes it necessary. VegaDark (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who are fans of Linkin Park}}

:Delete per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There are probably enough articles to support an "interested in" category if independently created, however. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent and per nom. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who are fans of the original ECW}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is a category for fans of the defunct professional wrestling promotion Extreme Championship Wrestling. If it is judged to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration on articles related to ECW and to have an adequately broad scope, then it should be renamed to :Category:Wikipedian Extreme Championship Wrestling fans, per the convention of :Category:Wikipedians who watch sports.

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm a fan of the original ECW as well, but it doesn't help to categorize that fact as I have no interest at this time to collaborate on related articles. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who play basketball}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. The mere fact of having played a sport as popular as basketball implies neither an above-average knowledge of the sport nor an interest in contributing to articles relevant to the game. The userbox is sufficient to convey the sentiment; there is no need to generate a list of users who play the game.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The same rationale could be said for everything else in :Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports, so perhaps a group nom is in order. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I wasn't aware of the other categories. Perhaps this can be a test nomination of sorts? It could clarify whether the nomination rationale has acceptance and, if so, whether this applies to all subcats of :Category:Wikipedians interested in playing sports or is unique to the "basketball" category and perhaps some others. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Not sure how useful it is, but this has nothing to do with WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and I'd much rather get larger community input on this considering the large numbers here. The previous purges leave me with the impression of a weak consensus. I'd likely still support making a better focus from these categories, or making some sort of transition to an acceptable form that is better aimed at collaboration, but these kinds of TfDs get used as "all or nothing" arguments all the time. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Neutral. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:*The perception that user categories that contain a high number of users should be treated with more caution is often an illusion masked by the fact that such categories are generally populated by one or two userboxes. A category may contain several hundred user pages, but it only takes one editor to make one edit to one userbox to populate the category or to virtually empty it. As for a transition to something aimed at collaboration, I'm all for creating :Category:Wikipedians interested in basketball (though, for obvious reasons, I oppose a straightforward rename). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

::*A fair enough point, and I can't say I really feel strongly about it, but still.. eh, whatever, no big deal. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*I think that the issue regarding population of a category by userboxes has come up in previous discussions, so I took a look at User:UBX/Basketball. In this case, it appears that the category is (almost) entirely populated by transclusions and/or substitutions of the userbox: there are 350 category members and ca. 350 transclusions of the userbox. Nonetheless, I think you hit on an important point when you suggested "making a better focus from these categories"; I don't feel that all sports categories should automatically be treated like this one. For instance, some sports have a fairly narrow base of participants and involve a fairly large commitment of time and effort (e.g. BASE jumping); in these cases, I think it's more likely (though not guaranteed) that people will have an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm guessing almost every Wikipedian has played basketball at least one time in their life. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who lend at Kiva}}

:Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, is limited to a single article: Kiva (organization).

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who follow the Chinmaya Mission}}

:Nominator's rationale: Excessively narrow scope; the collaborative potential of this category, if any, is essentially limited to two articles only: Chinmaya Mission, Chinmayananda.

• Delete as nominator; if kept, rename to :Category:Chinmaya Wikipedians or :Category:Chinmaya Mission Wikipedians. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who use Unix-like Operating Systems}}

:Nominator's rationale: There are many unix-like operating systems (about 20 are listed here), and each has its own unique features, so this category seems to be too broad to be useful. It could perhaps function as a parent category, but :Category:Wikipedians by operating system is not so heavily populated as to require subcategorisation. If kept, the category needs to be renamed to fix the capitalisation of "operating systems".

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While the nom. is correct in saying that there are unique differences between all Unix-like O/S's, the enjoyed aspect of them is the Unix qualities. Compare to Microsoft Windows Johnl1479 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

::Edit: I support rename to Wikipedians who use Unix-like operating systems — Johnl1479 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:Couldn't that argument be used for near every user-related category? I propose the ignore the above Johnl1479 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, it could, but that's no reason to ignore it. All user categories are useless and they should all be deleted. However, they're not all being discussed today. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Touché. However, it could be argued that user's who belong to certain user categories may provide some knowledge to the relating article should any dispute arise. — Johnl1479 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

*Keep Agree with User:Johnl1479, Unix-like is a broad category, but it shows that the Wikipedian prefers the similarities that the o/s's have in common — 71.197.96.202 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Removed obvious sockpuppetry vote, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion&diff=193742275&oldid=193740919 this edit] where Johnl1479 accidentally signed as this IP. VegaDark (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::Understood. See Steel's Talk Page for explanation: I neglected to log out of a public terminal — Johnl1479 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy Merge to :Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records members per creators comments about intended use of the category, below. - jc37 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::Note: I intended to perform the merge, and discovered that the user's WikiProject userbox had apparebtly been deleted, and this cat was inserted in a series of "fans" userboxes, despite the user's comments below. When I removed this category (supposedly "intended" to be for WP:G-UNIT) from those fan userboxes, the category was empty. Therefore, Delete as C1 - empty of those for whom it was intended. - jc37 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who are fan of G-Unit Records}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category is for "fans of G-Unit Records or someone on their roster". If the precedent of this discussion does not apply, and if the category is judged to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, then it should be renamed to a grammatically correct title, such as :Category:Wikipedians who like G-Unit Records or :Category:Wikipedian fans of G-Unit Records.

:*Comment: This Category is inteded for the G-Unit WikiProject.  UzEE  05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

::*:Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records members already exists and is populated by an unrelated userbox (Template:WikiProject:G-Unit Records/Userbox). Membership in a WikiProject and "fans of" userboxes and categories do not overlap, as one can be a fan of something without being a member of a WikiProject or having any interest in improving articles related to the topic. Incidentally, the userboxes that populate this category are listed here: two are "fans of" categories and one expresses a desire to be signed on by the record label. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Being a "fan" of something does not mean one is interested on collaborating on articles related to that topic, so it is useless to Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename as appropriate. I am against delete.  UzEE  05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians who enjoy Tintin Graphic Novels to :Category:Wikipedians who read The Adventures of Tintin

:Nominator's rationale: To match the title of the comic book series (The Adventures of Tintin), per the convention of the :Category:Wikipedians who read comic books. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy rename - Doesn't appear to be controversial, I'd do it myself but I presume the nominator had some doubts or he would have listed it in the speedy section in the first place, so i'll wait for further comment. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. — Johnl1479 18:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. VegaDark (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Protestant Christian Wikipedians to :Category:Protestant Wikipedians

:Speedy merge: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:Support Speedy Merge - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: speedy merge. VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians to :Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

:Speedy merge: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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: Mixture of Rename and Delete - Since it's been 2 weeks, with no closure, I'll go ahead and ignore the typical guidelines and close this.

:Delete :Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" to :Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

:Rename :Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Golden Girls

:Delete the rest. - jc37 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming:

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" to :Category:Wikipedians who like Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim to :Category:Wikipedians who like Adult Swim

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch Charm School to :Category:Wikipedians who like Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch COPS (TV series) to :Category:Wikipedians who like COPS (TV series)

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch Flavor of Love to :Category:Wikipedians who like Flavor of Love

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch Survivor to :Category:Wikipedians who like Survivor

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Golden Girls

:* :Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right to :Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

:Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of :Category:Wikipedians interested in television; some of these seem to be single- or few-article categories (e.g. Charm School, COPS (TV series), Flavor of Love, The Golden Girls) and, thus, should perhaps be deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename all - While the convention "who like" certainly is no more collaborative than "who watch", in the interest of standard naming conventions these should be renamed. I support a group nom for these categories in the future to rename to "interested in", or delete and allow creation of "interested in" cats. VegaDark (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm starting to think that maybe we should consider some group nominations to remove "who like"; "who love", and "who enjoy" from category naming conventions, as being just too confusing. (It may also help avoid biting newbies to Wikipedian category creation.) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all, none of these are helpful for encyclopedia building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• 'Rename all per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnl1479 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all, I see no good reason to keep or rename. - Epousesquecido (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename all - per VegaDark. Chris (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - To "hopefully" help prevent a closure of "no consensus", I'd like to suggest the following:
• :Delete :Category:Wikipedians who watch Adult Swim - it's a programming block of a network, and as such is a "single article category", since the "block" of programming can and does change.
• :Keep or Rename :Category:Wikipedians who watch "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" and :Category:Wikipedians who watch The Price is Right as game shows. The latter, in particular has quite a few related articles.
• :Keep or Rename :Category:Wikipedians who watch The Golden Girls - per the rest of the Television series cats.
• :Delete the rest as reality shows of one sort or other. - jc37 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

::*That would be fine with me if all the "Keep or renames" were renames (in the interest of standard naming conventions). VegaDark (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:::*I'd also be OK with that. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. If a Wikipedians interested in beer category wishes to be created, then by all means. Wizardman 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who are members of CAMRA}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; being a member of the Campaign for Real Ale does not imply either an above-average interest in or ability to improve the encyclopedia. Moreover, there seems to be only one article that is directly related to the category, so opportunities for collaboration are inherently limited.

• Delete as nominator and per ample precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Stricken per discussion below. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I do not think this category should be kept, but not for the reasons given. This category could possibly assist with collaboration on all articles on British real ales, as members of CAMRA are mostly extremely knowledgeable about such beers and often on many other types of beer. Is there :Category:Wikipedians interested in beer or similar title that it could be merged into? Let me declare an interest. Although living in Australia I am a member of CAMRA and first joined over 30 years ago. --Bduke (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:*There is :Category:Wikipedians interested in breweries, but the scope is obviously different. What level of knowledge or involvement is the norm with members of CAMRA? Does it involve knowledge of sources and relevant literature? (My impression was that it was an advocacy group not unlike thousands of others. Then again, the fact that there is an annual membership fee (£20) suggests a certain level of interest on the part of members...) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::*It is an advocacy group, but I very successful one. In the 1970s it stopped the big breweries removing real ale in wooden keg beers entirely from the market to concentrate on pressurized metal keg beers. Since then the market in real ale has increased significantly with many new small breweries being started. Members of CAMRA are very knowledgeable about these breweries and real ale in general. I have not time now as I am about to go out, to look up a list of articles that CAMRA members could collaborate on, but there are plenty. Sources - there are several CAMRA mamber written books that are very expert. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Thanks for clarifying... In light of your comments, I've stricken my "delete" recommendation in favour of some type of renaming, perhaps to :Category:Wikipedians interested in beer or :Category:Wikipedians in the Campaign for Real Ale. Normally, the interest category would be my first preference, but I worry that it would soon be populated by various userboxes for beer-drinkers who have no interest in articles about beer(s). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::* (Comment in response to Bduke's comments) - That's like saying that members of a U.S. democratic party advocacy group would be knowledgeable to collaborate on quite a few articles related to various U.S. democrat politicians. This sounds like a decent WikiProject in-the-make, but not a good idea for a category. It's food related, and an advocacy (Support/oppose issue) cat. Both of which... - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in beer per above. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I would support deletion as a second choice if no consensus to rename. VegaDark (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent, and per my comments above. - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey Scale to :Category:Wikipedians interested in the Kinsey scale

:Speedy rename to fix capitalisation (see Kinsey scale). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Switched to delete - given the way much of this category seems to have been populated (substitutions of an unrelated userbox) and its narrow scope. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - please relist in main section. I only see one or two articles directly related to the category. Kinsey Reports being the other. More information would be welcome, however. - jc37 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Relisted. I also noticed that a few category members (perhaps up to 50%) are in the category due to substitution of User:UBX/kinsey; the userbox and category were decoupled by me in July 2007. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per comments above. - jc37 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - too narrow of a scope, only could support collaboration for a few articles. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - With no prejudice against creating a cat of the suggested rename name, if enough WIkipedians are interested. - jc37 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who enjoy PhD Comics}}

:Nominator's rationale: Narrow scope; any collaborative potential is limited to 1-2 articles: Piled Higher and Deeper and Jorge Cham. In addition, the userbox that populates the category does not clearly express an interest in collaboration. If there is no consensus to delete, rename to :Category:Wikipedians who read Piled Higher and Deeper, per the convention of :Category:Wikipedians who read comic strips.

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who support England F.C.}}

:Nominator's rationale: Most countries have a national football team and I think it's reasonable to assume that most people support the national team of their country of birth or residence. Thus, I would expect this type of category to be effectively redundant, in most cases, to existing nationality or location category. If there is no consensus to delete, then the category ought to be renamed to :Category:Wikipedian England national football team fans, per the convention of :Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) national team fans and to match England national football team.

• Delete as nominator; else rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. However, if this is the case, then perhaps all of the other Category:Wikipedians who support ..... should also then be deleted? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• :Neutral comment - Click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Wikipedians+who+support&namespace=14 this link] to see a list of all Category:Wikipedians who support ...... - jc37 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• ::Reply: - Ah okay! :) --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete - Incidentally, I think we determined in the past that we just needed two admins to endorse to speedy cases like this. (Presuming unanimity of comment, of course.) So, as the nom is an admin + me = 2... - jc37 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians by alma mater: Pine Bush High School}}

:Speedy delete - see Pine Bush High School. With over 30 precedents over the course of seven months, it's more time-efficient to speedy these than to require a full 5 days of discussion. To quote VegaDark from a 2 February 2008 discussion: "With 30 discussions of past precedent, there is no way any of these will ever survive UCFD without consensus for deleting high school categories being overturned at WP:DRV first, so a UCFD is really only a formality at this point." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 add "the" per noms. - jc37 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

: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, as I went and upmerged everything already. Wizardman 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:Merge :Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora Core to :Category:Wikipedians who use Fedora

:Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an excessively narrow subdivision; also, Fedora has had six distinct cores. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not help users write an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Since merging a category involves deleting the category page, would you support deletion now without prejudice to the later nomination of the target category? (Only one of the categories was tagged, so unless the other is tagged and this discussion is relisted, only one can be affected by this CFD.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians for the Pacific Union}}

:Nominator's rationale: Political support/oppose category for users who support the creation of the Pacific Union; does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Wizardman 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedian League of Old Codgers}}

:Delete: Seems to be orphaned? Hardly used? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or listify to Wikipedia:League of Old Codgers - The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that the category is nothing other than a bottom-of-the-page notice for a fairly specific in-joke. In this respect, it is similar to Category:Rouge admin (deleted recently), only it's significantly less populated or known. A userbox or project page (similar to Wikipedia:Knights of NPOV or Wikipedia:Rouge admin) would be more appropriate. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Listify/Weak Keep - See the last discussion concerning this cat. I'm personally likely going to waffle in either direction depending on the discussion to follow. - jc37 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not help the encyclopedia to categorize this. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Divine Wikipedians}}

:Nominator's rationale: A joke category populated by this userbox, which states: "This user is God." While the userbox can be considered humorous, heretical, or somewhere in between (depending one's views and inclinations), the category is utterly without use.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - serves no purpose. Is it actually a joke??? I cannot see how it helps encyclopaedic collaboration. EJF (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Category conveys no useful information. Jacob1207 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who play pen-and-paper games}}

:Nominator's rationale: All-inclusive, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. A category that includes everyone who has ever played tic-tac-toe, hangman, connect the dots, or any other game involving paper and a pen or pencil cannot possibly be useful.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EJF (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Asian Wikipedians}}

:Nominator's rationale: Per the consensus reached for Category:Eurasian Wikipedians (see here or here). Categorisation by race does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, partly because racial classifications are fairly broad and vague and partly because identifying with a certain racial group does not imply any type of ability to improve (or interest in improving) the encyclopedia. A userbox or userpage notice is adequate to convey the sentiment. Also, this category is populated by Template:User Filipinos Are Asians, which is actually a userbox for belief rather than racial affiliation; one can hold the belief that Filipinos are racially Asian without being Asian.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and I might take that last one to deletion review (strikes me as head counting rather than weighing of arguments). -- Ned Scott 05:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:*What exactly is the argument in this or the other discussion that would justify retention? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, does not help in the construction of an encyclopedia. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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, without prejudice to more focused individual or small group nominations (for deletion, renaming, or merging). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians by website}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Advogato}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Encyclopaedia Metallum}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Flags of the World}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Intellipedia}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to LyricWiki}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Link Everything Online}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to MusicBrainz}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to the Open Directory Project}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to OpenStreetMap}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to WikiWikiWeb}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who contribute to Wookieepedia}}

I think it's time for these categories to go. There is numerous past precedent to delete these individually, but I think as a group categorizing Wikipedians by what other websites they "contribute to" does not help Wikipedia in any way. I contribute to plenty of other websites, but that does not mean that I have anything relevant to add to the articles on those websites or any intent on collaboration on them. Additionally, even if a collaborative intent was implied by these categories, their scope would be too narrow to sustain a category past collaboration on a single article, which renders the purpose of having a category pointless (since collaboration on single articles can better occur on such articles' talk page). VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no strong views, but it is often suggested that material should be transwikied. Would these categories help to find people who would do that? I am currently trying to clean up some articles by moving some material to another wiki. It would certainly be helpfull to know of other editors who worked on that other wiki, although it is not one with a category like these. --Bduke (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - As we are building an encyclopedia, which is, by its nature, a reference work, I think that it is quite useful, helpful, and, honestly, smart, to have a grouping of individuals who contribute to other online reference works. If we are to presume that Wikipedian categories have any value, certainly this would be one. These are individuals who, while we may or may not presume adpetness, they at least have a smattering of experience at contributing to reference works, and I would presume that accessing that knowledge base (by looking through the category grouping for someone) would be exactly the usage presumed for Wikipedian categories. - jc37 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I didn't even realize that the category was for "reference-based websites" only, so the parent category needs a rename to reflect that if kept. That being said, I still disagree that we can assume any extra ability to collaborate on Wikipedia as a result of being in these categories, and even if that were true, I think there could be much better names for such categories. For instance, let's say there was both a category for Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Alpha and a category for Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Beta. Both are Star Trek Wikis, so there would be no benefit to have both categories since the users within each would presumably have the same skills. This situation presents the fact that similar-content website categories would be duplicative of eachother if the argument to keep is that the users within would have some special skill related to the subject of the website they contribute to. Further, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that someone who simply "contributes" to another website has a better ability to contribute to wikipedia on that subject. Contribute can mean anything from being a regular contrubutor for years to simply fixing a spelling error once as an anon years ago. While it would be nice if the editors in the latter group wouldn't add themselves to the category, it is undeniable that such categorization occurs nonetheless (for those that like to add themselves to every category that applies to themselves, regardless of collaboration intent). Therefore, I still feel these should be deleted, but if kept I think a rename to resolve the issues above is in order. VegaDark (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

::*I sincerely don't mean this as "snarky" (whatever that means) as this may appear, but... Read the page? It (I presume?) makes clear the category inclusion criteria. That said, what would your suggestions for a rename be? - jc37 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*I don't think we should have to read the description to know what a category is about-the title should make it clear. In this case, if kept a better name would be :Category:Wikipedians by reference-based website. As for subcategories, a better naming convention might be :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to music-related reference based websites (for websites like MusicBrainz and LyricWiki) or similar. VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::::*I agree about the accuracy in naming, to a point. Sometimes the inclusion criteria can be narrow enough for a category, but yet too large for a succinct name. For example, this category is specifically for reference-based websites, but also includes some free or roughly free (IANAL) content websites. That seems difficult to quantify in a single name, but yet not so broad an inclusion criteria as to make this parent cat "not useful". (And I dunno if we need to think about subcatting the cat yet.) - jc37 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Keep as is--these are mostly or entirely relevant. They are some of them free projects, appropriate for cooperation. The specific names of the sites are distinctive for anyone who might possibly be interested DGG (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all Reuse issues, both in both directions benefit from the free-content-site cats, and I see reasonable potential to include the others as well. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Not to mention, the precedent cited includes some keeps for similar reasons. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play Resident Evil}}

Per precedent at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Wikipedians by video game. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 nat.utoronto 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play card games}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play blackjack}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play bridge}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play FreeCell}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play go fish}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play hearts}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play poker}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play solitaire}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play spades}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who play spit}}

I've played almost every one of these at least once, yet I have no desire or above-average ability to collaborate on any of these articles just because I have played them. Some of them are nearly all-inclusive (who hasn't played poker or freecell?) and some of them suffer from being too narrow of a topic for collaboration (go fish, spit, uno). For those in these categories that do want to collaborate, they should create an "interested in" version of the category, since categorizing users by what game they play does not help anything. A rename could introduce miscategorization, so independet creation of interested in categories would be a better idea. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I might oppose deletion of a few of these. Some are, as the nominator notes, too specific, but not all of them. I would treat the naming convention "who play" similar to the Wikipedians by skill categories. I'd be interested in discovering how many multiple articles are category could represent. Further discussion would be welcome. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all except the two collectible card games, which perhaps should be considered separately. I have, at one time or another, played almost all of these games (except the two collectible card games and UNO), yet I've no above-average knowledge of the subjects, access to or awareness of sources and literature regarding the subjects, or interest in contributing to articles related to these subjects. I'm sure that this is true of many or most others. Simply playing a card game -- especially considering how easy it is to do so on the computer -- doesn't imply any knowledge of it beyond the basic rules. I think players of the collectible card games may be more involved in the games (if nothing else, they must purchase the cards to play), and thus more knowledgeable about the subject. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to {{lc|Wikipedians who play card games}} These collectively would aid in improving the coverage of card games on WikiPedia.--Bedford 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Would the nominator have any issue with splitting the "copyrighted" card games into individual nominations? - jc37 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:*No, although UNO is copyrighted and there seems to be no agument to keep that- I assume you mean the other two? (I'd still support deletion for those, however, as "who play" ≠ "interested in"). VegaDark (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all the above. I was going to suggest keeping, since there are quite a few articles on these, and my comments above concerning Wikipedians by skill. (Bridge and Poker in particular have a whole library of study on the specific topics.) However, the computer point was well-taken. These being in the "public domain", there are a myriad of games, variations (Solitaire? which one?), and so on, included in all sorts of books, video game packs, etc. There just is too far a divide between those who play for entertainment, and those who "study the game". While I tend to shy away from "interested in" if at all possible, there's just no getting around the confusion that applies to these. And along with that, I'd likely support a similar deletion/recreated-renamed of any "Wikipedians who play a specific game" cat. - jc37 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

: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 as WP:CSD#C1 on 00:28, 21 February 2008 by User:Jc37. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who love the Star Wars music}}

I love the Star Wars music myself, but it doesn't help Wikipedia to categorize that fact. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I found that there are quite a few articles on the themes and music from Star Wars. That said "who love" is probably not the best convention for this. I think "who listen to" was the most recent convention. I'm shying away from "interested in" in this case, but I won't oppose that rename, if there is consensus. (In other words, Delete "who love", with no prejudice for recreation of a more accurately named category, while alerting the current members of the new possibility.) - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Agreed there are probably enough Star Wars music articles to facilitate collaboration, but my point still stands that it doesn't help to categorize "who loves" anything (which apparently you agree with, so I'm not sure why you opposed). VegaDark (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Changed to "Comment". - jc37 02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm fond of the music of various films, but I have no special interest in improving articles about those films or their soundtracks. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who love documentary films}}

Wikipedians who "love" documentary films do not necessarily want to collaborate on articles related to such films. If that is the case, the users within should create and join :Category:Wikipedians interested in documentary films. As named, this does not foster collaboration. A rename may introduce miscategorization, so independent creation of the new category would be the best option. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians interested in Friedrich Nietzsche}}

Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by individual, categorizing by individual is too narrow of a scope for user categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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: Depopulate, retain as parent category. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians interested in history}}

Like the recently nominated book category, this seems far too general and broad to facilitate any sort of collaboration by individual users in the category. This should be kept as a parent category for more refined categories, but depopulated of individual users. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Depopulate as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate per nom. The thing about history is -- there's just so much of it! :) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Depopulate per nom. Far too broad to be useful, but appropriate as parent category. Horologium (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who listen to SwitchAM 1197}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who listen to Heart 106}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who listen to 2Day FM}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who listen to KCRW}}

:{{lc|Wikipedians who listen to KROQ}}

Per precedent set at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008#Category:Wikipedians who listen to FM 103.2, these types of categories are not helpful. To quote the reasoning there, "This category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration, since merely listening to a radio station implies neither an above-average desire nor ability to contribute encyclopedic content about it. In addition, any possible collaborative merit is limited to just one article, so the category's scope is too narrow." VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Precedents regarding similar categories for individual TV stations also seem applicable: see here and here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom and precedent. Horologium (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - (And would support a nomination of all the parent category's sub-cats.) - jc37 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

:The result of the discussion was: Merge all to :Category:User simple - jc37 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|User simple}}

:{{lc|User simple-1}}

:{{lc|User simple-2}}

:{{lc|User simple-3}}

:{{lc|User simple-4}}

:{{lc|User simple-N}}

Usually my stance on language categories is that if a wikipedia exists or is likely to be created in that language, we should keep it, otherwise it should be deleted. This is a bit of an anomaly from my stance, as we have a simple English Wikipedia, however I still feel these categories are not helpful. Simple English, as far as I understand it, is not a real distinct language, but simply English simplified down to allow ESL students learn it easier (from Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia: "The Simple English Wikipedia was started as a response to needs of English learners (EAL students) and English teachers"). At first I was only going to nominate the native speaker category, but I realized this would probably best serve Wikipedia simply merged to :Category:User en-1 and en-2. Everyone in these categories would presumably be learning English, hence this is redundant to :Category:User en-1 and :Category:User en-2. At minimum, however, :Category:User simple-N needs to be deleted/merged since, by definition, it is impossible to be a native speaker of simple English. I know there is an argument to be made that it may take some skill to be able to reduce one's vocabulary enough to be effective at simple English, which could also be the source of some users in the category, but I think the presumption should be that most proficient speakers of English are sufficiently competent to be able to use simple English. Every time you talk to a young child you use simple English, so I don't think of being able to "not use big words", so to speak, is a good reason to categorize users. If there is a concern that there might be miscategorization by merging such users, I could support outright deletion of all the categories as well. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge 1 and 2 to :Category:User en-1, Merge 3, 4 and N to :Category:User en-2, or delete if no consensus to merge, as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I find it quite hard to speak or write Simple English. Complex words and phrasings slip in inadvertantly. (see?) So although I'm en-N, I am at best simple-2. And yet, I don't think the normal language classification scheme works either. I'd suggest rather than a merge (I would be rather confused by being merged into en-1 when I am already in en-N, were I to badge my simple skills) that a rethink of the scheme of classification be undertaken. I think there is collaborative/encyclopedic value in knowing who might be good at proofing work when setting out to improve Simple English articles. But the current scheme doesn't convey this well as is, so I agree with the nominator, something needs doing... ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:*My proposal certainly isn't set in stone, so feel free to propose an alternative solution. Perhaps merge all somewhere? VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment any editor whose command of English was limited to Simple English would not be able to understand the nomination. DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Luckily, this isn't [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia the Simple English Wikipedia], so that shouldn't be an issue. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep N, delete the rest. Or if no consensus for that, merge all. Per Lar, I can see the value of knowing who can understand and write in Simple English. I don't, however, see the need to break it up further. --Kbdank71 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Wait, keep N? That's the only one that's impossible to actually be true. You can't be a native speaker of a language that specifically describes itself as a simplified version of a language to help non-native speakers. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:**Maybe don't call it "N" then... give it some other name/tag/letter that conveys "I feel I'm good at the (difficult for some) task of writing in simple"... (how about "E" for expert) Like I said, I'm not and I know it. I've tried writing over there, (mostly commenting on things like CU noms and the like) and rereading what I wrote, it came out stilted and difficult to understand. The vocab was smaller but the structure if anything was more tangled than how I normally speak. (if such is possible, I can hear my "fans" saying now!) This is a discussion where I think a heads up to the category members (or even a mention over on simple's village pump?) might get some more creative ideas flowing... ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:**Good point. How about merging all into :Category:User simple? I like the E for expert, but I'm sure that will confuse people who are used to numbers and N's. --Kbdank71 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Lar. Being able to write in Simple English is not the same as being able to talk to children. It needs special skills. I think we should ask on simple's village pump. Let us see what users there would like to see here to recruit people to help them out. A possible solution, but I would await the comments from users over at the simple WP, is to just keep :Category:User simple, but the userbox should say "This user can write in Simple English", not "This user can speak Simple English". It is writing skills that we want, not speaking skills. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I have asked at on simple. Replies may appear there. --Bduke (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Simple English is unusual in one main way. Understanding it and writing it are entirely different things. Understanding falls into three categories: none (speaks no English), moderate (speaks basic English) and native (native, fluent or high level English). This is mainly the reason it was created - to make it easy to understand. Writing it is entirely different. As stated above, there is no native speakers. Many times people believe because they are fluent in English, they are also fluent in SE. Even among our regular contributors and admins on Simple, there are few that would qualify for a 3 or 4. It is not so much that they cannot do it, but they don't know the rules. It is much like perfectly understanding English but knowing only 10% of the rules of grammar. Overall, the separation of levels/categories needs to be based on writing, not understanding. 0, 2, 3 and 4 would be the most likely divisions so I would suggest merging 1 into 2 and N into 4. Creol (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (Simple:wp admin)

----

: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.

: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:Wikipedian traceurs. "Traceur" is the tern for a person who practices parkour; "Wikipedian s" is the usual convention for subcategories under :Category:Wikipedians by skill, to which this needs to be added. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Traceur Wikipedians}}

"Wikipedians who practice Parkour" - Traceur redirects to Parkour, so at least a rename is in order. However, I don't see why having this categorized is helpful to Wikipedia at all, so my first preference would be to delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, rename to :Category:Wikipedians who practice parkour if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Wikipedians who practice Parkour. Presumably, if you are practicing this, you would know enough about it to help write articles, unlike the multitude of "interested in" categories. --Kbdank71 15:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems to be a single-article topic? - jc37 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:*There are a number of articles in :Category:Parkour, although it's questionable whether knowledge of the techniques of parkour would be relevant to most of the articles (e.g. the biographical or film articles). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 as per nom. I would recommend Black Falcon's suggested course of action, i.e. decoupling the userbox from the category. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename :Category:Wikipedians of the Piedmont Triad to :Category:Wikipedians from the Piedmont Triad
• Rename :Category:Wikipedians of Worcester to :Category:Wikipedians from Worcester

Per the latest discussion on the "Wikipedians by location" categories, there was more or less a consensus that "Wikipedians of" should be changed to "Wikipedians from", so let's make this official. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename both as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Kbdank71 15:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename :Category:Wikipedians of Worcester to Category:Wikipedians in Worcester, Massachusetts. The userbox is for users who "live in or hail from" Worcester, and most of the users seem to be of the former type, which probably makes "in" more appropriate. I could also support decoupling the userbox from the category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 for :Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island and delete :Category:Wikipedian citizens of the European Union (the sole user in the category is already in two more specific subcats of :Category:Wikipedians in Europe). :Category:Wikipedians who live in Petrozavodsk has already been speedy deleted per criterion C1 (empty category). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename :Category:Wikipedians on Vancouver Island to :Category:Wikipedians in Vancouver Island
• Rename :Category:Wikipedians who live in Petrozavodsk to :Category:Wikipedians in Petrozavodsk
• Merge :Category:Wikipedian citizens of the European Union to :Category:Wikipedians in the European Union (Side note: You can, in theory, have citizenship in the EU and not currently live in the EU, but for purposes of Wikipedia categorization, categorizing citizenship is unhelpful, so let's assume the lone user is in fact in the EU. Wouldn't be opposed to deleting this particular category, either)

Per the latest discussion on the "Wikipedians by location" categories, there was more or less a consensus that these should be changed to "Wikipedians in", so let's make this official. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rename/merge all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Vancouver Island, unfortunately, as a geographical place doesn't work with "in". "on" or "from" seems to be the usage for that location. So I'd suggest "from" in that specific case. (Or, if necessary, allow "on" as a solitary exception, categorised with "in".) Rename :Category:Wikipedians who live in Petrozavodsk to :Category:Wikipedians in Petrozavodsk per nom. Merge/Delete :Category:Wikipedian citizens of the European Union. It's almost redundant with :Category:Wikipedians in Europe, but at the same time appears to be a passive "Support/Oppose" category. As the user claims to be from Slovenia which, according to its article, is in central Europe, just merge to :Category:Wikipedians in Europe. - jc37 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Yes, I saw that and it doesn't sound right, although I thought it was still technically gramatically correct. If not, it can be left as is or changed to from. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Looking through other "in" categories, I found :Category:Wikipedians in Staten Island, so whatever happens to this should apply to that as well. VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*I think the use of "in" may be more acceptable for Staten Island, since it is not just an island but also an administrative area. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - jc37 07:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians interested in jury nullification}}

All 26 users in the category are in the category as a result of this userbox, which states "This user supports Jury Nullification". No indication any of the users are actually interested in collaborating on topics related to jury nullification, and even if they were, there is a question as to if this subject is sufficiently broad enough to facilitate collaboration past a single article, which I don't think it does. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, with prejudice against recreation due to being too narrow of a subject for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as a support/oppose category mistitled as "interest". I think the precedent of this discussion is informative. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 close - In the past, when such categories have been created for WP:POINT reasons, due to a sudden semi-large scale drama, it was later determined that nominating them so close to the event was probably not a good idea. I'm extending this category the same courtesy. Feel free to re-nominate in at least a week or so, at editorial discretion. - jc37 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX}}

Nonsense. Probably speedyable but I brought it here in the interest of avoiding any complaints. Created during fallout of Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Block of User:Equazcion. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete/speedy delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:POINT. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Why not just wait til :Category:Rouge admins is done? That's what I'm doing. Whatever that closes as should apply here. On an unrelated note, I think we should call the incident "Equazciongate". I think that would be so totally rad. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:21, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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; incidentally, many of the users in this category are already in the parent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Central California}}

Too vague/broad to facilitate collaboration. Central California goes to a disambiguation page. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Upmerge to :Category:Wikipedians in California. --Kbdank71 15:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Upmerging is fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 - In going through these, I discovered that several were the creations of a single editor. I went through the editor's userbox creation list page, and removed nearly all the categories from the userboxes. They all were either redlinks, or had only userbox listing pages, or had only 1 or 2 actual members. (As well as the concerns of the nom, below, of course.) If this leaves them empty, I'll delete. The other nominations below are similar situations. Didn't upmerge as the few users involved already had several location cats, including a "step up". - jc37 - jc37 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians from Valdosta, Georgia}}

Only one user despite existing for over a year, city of 45,529 people as of 2006.

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Lahr}}

No users in category, only populated by a userbox page. Created almost 2 years ago. Location with a population of only 43,810 as of 2005.

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Temple Cloud}}

Only one user despite existing for 17 months. Population of 1,400 as of 2001.

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Bexley, Ohio}}

10 months, 1 user, 13,000 population as of 2000.

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Saratoga Springs, New York}}

15 months, 2 users, 26,000 population as of 2000.

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Cobourg, Ontario}}

Nearly 2 years, 1 user, 18,000 population as of 2006.

:{{lc|Wikipedians in Kirkland WA}}

18 months, 1 user, 46,000 population as of 2005.

Per precedent to delete :Category:Wikipedians from Fox Chapel, PA below, these are too narrow to facilitate collaboration. Probably a lot more of these, but I got tired of looking. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as nom. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Wikipedians in Lahr as unused and empty, upmerge the rest to parent "Wikipedians in foo" categories. --Kbdank71 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Upmerging is fine with me. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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

:This was a rather lengthy discussion, and it could use at least some summary. (So I apologise in advance for the length of the closure.)

:The following is from a template posted to this discussion at one point. It's at least a decent start:

:Arguments for Keep

:*1.) Meant for humorous purposes only

:*2.) It's harmless/doesn't hurt anyone

:*3.) Disruption by some people doesn't mean anything is wrong with the category

:*4.) A category has since been added for regular editors too

:*5.) Deleting it takes away an element of personality/tradition/culture from Wikipedia

:*6.) Nothing wrong with a joke restricted to admin use only

:*7.) Nothing wrong with it if it's open to use by all users

:Arguments for Deletion

:*1.) Admin-only joke category not in spirit of Wikipedia

:*2.) Adminship not a cabal/trophy; restricted joke category serves to perpetuate view of adminship as a special club/clique

:*3.) Divisive/offensive

:*4.) Would be okay as a joke but has had serious consequences/been taken seriously/not worth trouble it's caused

:*5.) Humorous category with no collaborative use/no real benefit

:*6.) Most humor-only categories are deleted, no reason this is different

:*7.) Could be viewed as an effort to suppress criticism, even if intended humorously

:*8.) Userbox/page sufficient for humor purpose

:In addition to these there were several links to other essays. We have a tradition that commenters can link to an essay in lieu of retyping what the essay said in a specific discussion. As such, there were several links to various sections of WP:AADD and WP:NOT.

:There were a few additional things that need to be noted (to which I gave additional weight in this closure):

:1.) While normally, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem might apply; in this case those comments are specifically placed at Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal, and I believe that there is a strong consensus agreeing with what was quoted: that admiship is "no big deal", and is merely a collection of tools, and a few added responsibilities which go along with those tools.

:2.) The rather clear confusion between rogue and rouge, even amongst those commenting here. (And by the way, it would be easy enough to discount every "vote" which indicated that the commenter thought that this was a category for rogue admins. But I did not do so, as the category has apparently grown in membership to include those who have/had that same mistaken opinion of the intended inclusion criteria of the category.) So it's clear that the category's inclusion criteria has become muddled at best.

::Lar's comments clarify the category's initial history well enough, I think:

::* "I suggest you and everyone else concerned about the category being " bad-faith, disruptive, divisive and deliberately so" might want to read Wikipedia:Rouge_admin. That essay/joke/whatever you want to call it is the definition of what it means to be "rouge" (not rogue, the typo is deliberate there) in the en:wp context. You can argue that irony doesn't work well on line, or that the category isn't making the point it is intended to make because people don't get the joke, or you can even argue that it has passed its day, if you like. But to say it's bad faith... misses the point. Back in the day, you used to gain admission to the category by some other admin spotting something particularly clueful you had done, some particularly astute or courageous edit or block.... to roll back the tide of linkspammers, POV pushers and assorted crazies with fringe theories to push. The addition sometimes even cited the diff, you never added yourself to it, that was declasse. It was a badge of honor among some. Again, perhaps that day has passed. Perhaps most in it now don't even recall that. Perhaps it needs deleting. Perhaps the existance of it is now divisive. Wikipedia is far bigger and more formal than it was even 2 years ago, and perhaps some inside lore and jokes that used to work, and work well, maybe they don't any more... Perhaps no one gets "Ha Ha only serious" any more? I don't know. But, whatever else it is, it's not bad faith. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)"

::Incidentally, one of the things that came out of the "Userbox wars" was that adding a userbox to someone else's userpage could be considered disruptive. If so, the same can be said about user categories. And if that was the intended usage, it's another reason to delete.

:3.) The incident which resulted in the block of a Wikipedian - While noteworthy, I won't duplicate the discussion here, except to say that adding oneself to a category which has inclusion criteria which does not fully describe you would seem to be an egregious violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. (I, and I presume everyone else, would want to believe that all categorisatons of Wikipedians are a true statement about themselves.) The question of "Is it humour" merely muddied the waters (and may have been partly a cause of the action/reactions). And this is one of several reasons why Wikipedian categories based on humour have been repeatedly deleted (WP:UCFD/I). As noted in the discussion, one may question whether humour that causes someone to dress up as spiderman and climb the Reichstag (another "humourous" page), is humour, or just biting our fellow Wikipedians. While the humour of the category may or may not have been genuine at one time (and not necessarily at another Wikipedian's expense), these comments are well taken.

:4.) Wikipedia history - I think that we have a precedent from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza called the "Messedrocker solution"(named after the Wikipedian who proposed it), for pages on Wikipedia which are of historical value, but which no longer are considered "a good idea". It would apply if this discussion was aimed at the Wikipedian page describing Rouge admins. But this is merely a category of inclusion. As such, I don't think that it would be contrary to the intent and spirit of that solution to place a salted notice (or possibly even a soft-redirect to Wikipedia:Rouge admins) at the category location.

:Again, I apologise at the length of the closure, but due to the length of the discussion, it was the only way, I felt, to make the closure clear enough for all. - jc37 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|Rouge admins}}

:Nominator's rationale: We kept this before because it was understood that it was a humor category, and not to be taken seriously. A non-admin has now been blocked for using this category. If we can't use the joke category in a humorous and fun way, without fearing that paranoid admins are going to block us for it, then it's not a humor category. It just sucks all the fun out of it. Ned Scott 07:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::Comment from nominator I think it's clear that most of us don't want to see this category get deleted, but none the less I believe the situation documented at WP:ANI#Block of User:Equazcion and this category need some clarification about its use. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment/keep I just wanted to let everyone know that I no longer seek deletion of this category, and rather it would be kept, as a humor category. At the start I wouldn't have minded it if it had been deleted, but I made this nomination thinking it would likely be kept and simply get some constructive discussion on the issue. However, the issue really isn't with this specific category, but how dispute resolution was handled. I don't completely disagree about if non-admins should be allowed to use it or not. I'm sorry for coming to my senses a little late in the game, and I hope we don't axe a part of the humor in this community. A situation like this could have happened for any category, so my reasons for nominating this one don't really apply. -- Ned Scott 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: Point! Point! Block him! just kidding :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:16, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Any links for this blockage? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:*WP:ANI#Block of User:Equazcion. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. One user was annoyed because this category was kept at a previous XfD discussion. Therefore (and WP:POINT is overused, but this is a perfect example) he figured that repeatedly adding himself to the category (and thus possibly giving the confusing impression that he was an admin) was a fine way to disrupt it. Equazcion is by no means the worst offender (and I am not referring to the nom here either) but quite why we let a small group of editors - see ANI discussion - continue their tiresome "all admins are idiots/incompetent/whatever" campaign on Wikipedia is beyond me. Black Kite 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I don't believe such a "campaign" is a factor here. I certainly don't believe that all admins are idiots or anything like that. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::* I know - as I said, Ned, I don't include you in this. Your nom is reasonable under the circumstances, but I would hope that disruption by editors isn't a reason to delete, not because it's particularly important, but purely for the slippery slope factor. Black Kite 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. One bad incident doesn't mean the category is bad, it means one user and one administrator each had poor judgment. Ral315 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:Poor judgment related to this affair abounded and continues to abound. By no means is it limited to one user and one administrator. Mike R (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Creates cabalism = Gone. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ral315. One pointy attempt to suck the fun out of the project shouldn't spoil it for others. GlassCobra 07:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Baby, bathwater, hive of deadly bees, per Black Kite and Ral315. Just because someone who wasn't an admin added himself to it to make a point, and was subsequently blocked for it, is no reason to delete it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Making a point isn't blockable, disrupting to make a point is, but we don't really have any evidence of that (and no, the disruption caused by the anticipation of disruption doesn't count). The fact remains that someone got blocked for using a humor category, and that should be a big WTF to anyone. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Yes someone got blocked for using a humor category. That someone is currently not an admin, yet the category has "admin" in its name. While it's not like he put :Category:Wikipedia administrators onto his user page, he is inadvertantly implying that he is an admin, when he is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*Next thing you know people will assume the Rouge part means something too! Oh noes! -- Ned Scott 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia does not need admin only fun clubs where admins laugh at the scum aka regular editors and boast about breaking the rules by writing stuff like "Rouge admins firmly believe that adminship is a trophy, and will block anyone who states otherwise." Extremely divisive and offensive, it sucks the fun out of the project for anyone not part of the club. -Lapinmies 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• well now wait a second, I don't think any of the admins listed in this cat think that way. User:John, the blocking admin, is not in this cat. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• The implication clearly is that these admins don't care about the rules or the rights of the editors and I find this outrageous. Just click on the link to the rougelike game and it tells you what it means to be a rouge admin "Your character is a "rouge" admin, and you must commit as many outrageous actions as possible before you'll get forced out of Wikipedia." I understand that this is supposed to be a joke, but it is very offensive and divisive. -Lapinmies 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete on the same grounds that the humor cat :Category:Gayass Wikipedians was slaughtered and on the grounds that admins don't look good in drag anyway. I mean, "rouge" is makeup, isn't it?? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:* Comment Not the same thing at all, but personally I would've kept :Category:Gayass Wikipedians. And I look terrible in drag. Black Kite 09:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Omg drama. Omg no sense of humour. Omg omg omg. The justification for this MFD is effectively "It's not fair because non-admins can't be in a category that is specifically for admins" - just read that a few times and realise how silly it really is. Equazcion didn't solely get blocked for using the category, he got blocked for being a dick about it when asked reasonably to remove a category from his userpage that identified the subject as an admin, and commenced a lame edit war. I wouldn't have gone for a 24 hour block (maybe a 24 second one), but I can see why it was imposed. Neıl ☎ 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Merge to Rouge Wikipedians since anything else would be pointy considering I created :Category:Rouge editors. Both admins and those who don't want adminship need to blow off steam sometimes and humor is the best way to do that. We now have two such categories, one for each group, and as long as we can keep it humorous and not take ourselves too seriously without losing focus on our primary task here this can work out. I think this has been blown way out of proportion. As for :Category:Gayass Wikipedians I didn't approve of that deletion (mildly speaking) and there were more serious issues at stake there. I don't think we should compare the two. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

: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 per nom. Per Football team, Football club (a redirect to football team) is a synonym. So "club team" is redundant. - jc37 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) club team fans to :Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans

:Speedy merge: Redundant, unnecessary intermediate level of categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Um, there is a closely related discussion below. Is it useful to have two discussion at once? User:Dorftrottel 18:11, February 11, 2008

:*Nevermind. User:Dorftrottel 18:14, February 11, 2008

::*You're right ... it probably was a little premature of me to open this discussion while the other was ongoing. After all, if the scope of the Feb. 7 nomination was expanded, this discussion would become moot. However, I really intended this to be a minor speedy fix (as a matter of fact, I'll move it to the speedy section). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll admit to being somewhat confused by the above discussion. If this could be clarified, I'd be happy to close this : ) - jc37 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:*At the time I posted this nomination, there was another nomination (see here) concerning the deletion of the entire Wikipedian football (soccer) fans category tree. This discussion is intended to eliminate the "club team fans" vs. "team fans" distinction within the category tree. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

The result of the discussion was speedy merge. VegaDark (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians in Sault Ste. Marie to :Category:Wikipedians in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

:Speedy merge: redundant categories; the main article is located at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

:The following 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 - jc37 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Eurasian Wikipedians}}

The concept of race, as applied to humans, is a vague and mostly subjective social construct. According to the article Race (classification of human beings):

The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time...

Thus, the classification "Eurasian" can and does mean different things to different people. For example, someone who is one-sixteenth Japanese and fifteen-sixteenths Slavic may consider him/herself Asian, Eurasian, European, or none of the three. More generally, a grouping of users on the basis of a characteristic as broad and undefined as race does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration, because it does not tell use anything about the ability or willingness of an editor in the category to collaborate on certain aspects of the encyclopedia. (Note that we do not actually have - nor do I think we should have - a "Wikipedians by race" classification scheme.)

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Those who don't care about race don't have to add racial categories to their user pages. If someone wants to identify as Eurasian it is unreasonable and unfair to say they should be prohibited from doing so. Race is important to some people. If the category appears to be sincere it is overbearing and racially insensitive to deny people the right to racially idenitfy. The statement that your race does not matter to your writing and editing is highly POV - some people would disagree.Wikidemo (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I'm not trying to argue that editors should be prohibited from self-identifying as Eurasian. However, they can (and do) do so via userboxes and typed statements; there is no need to create and maintain a list of Eurasian users. Categories should not merely be "bottom-of-the-page" notices. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see anything in WP:MYSPACE that applies to this category (which has been used way too often, and out of context, on uCfD). I would have no problem with "Wikipedians by race", if people choose to make that known. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 (12 days later...) - Too many coments/suggestions going in different directions to determine a clear consensus. - jc37 22:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors - Potentially all-inclusive category. And likely to grow larger and larger every day. (And how does one non-subjectively define the criteria for inclusion?) Anyone looking to collaborate with someone knowledgeable about Good articles, need merely drop a note on that talk page. - jc37 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Including everyone that made an edit to any good article just makes a very unwieldy and useless category. --Kbdank71 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) (see below)
• Delete per nom. Pretty sure there is a featured article equivelant for this category as well. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've found this cat to be useful in helping to promote comradery and co-operation among Wikipedians interested in GAs. Johnfos (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, these are users who have specified a distinct area of interest, even if by an odd criteria (odd to some, personally I don't think it's odd). -- Ned Scott 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A useful category. In the wonderful, but thoroughly unlikely, event that all Wikipedians suddenly became interested in improving content then this category would still be useful as a parent category, subdivided by interests within the Good Article process (reviewers, writers, copy editors, pop culture GAs, or what have you). User categories around our most important processes ought to be considered valid and have clear collaborative potential. --JayHenry (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Just a question: How useful? If I make a one-word addition to a good article, doesn't that make me a contributor? Take Atom, for example, a recently listed good article. In the last 150 edits, there are well over 20 separate contributors. How many more are there in the entire history? How many more for all of the good articles out there? And every day, there would be more contributors as more and more people edit good articles. How useful is that? Are you really interested in collaborating with just about everyone? Can you really tell me this is anything more than editors wanting to toot their own horns? --Kbdank71 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

::* How useful? On a scale of 1 to 17 it has a usefulness rating of 11.4 in my estimation :) Is your point that users can frivolously and unhelpfully add themselves to user categories? Certainly true, but nothing unique to this category. Perhaps separate the category from the userbox if that's a concern. Say with this user category (true for other big categories as well), if I had a question about Good Articles, I have encountered hundreds of editors and don't know off the top of my head which of them are interested or familiar with the GA process. Now I can look through the category to find an editor who I am comfortable approaching. As I said above, the category could (and maybe should) be further sub-categorized by more specific interest. How about we leave a note at GA talk encouraging them to do this? --JayHenry (t) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• It may be relevant to note the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles and :Category:WikiProject Good Articles members. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• See, this I can get behind. :Category:WikiProject Good Articles members says collaboration. That is where I would go to ask a question about good articles. --Kbdank71 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge it into :Category:WikiProject Good Articles members, which is fairly duplicative, and more explicitly about collaboration. krimpet✽ 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I think merging may obscure the scope of the proposed target category. This category is for editors who contribute to good articles, whereas the other category is for users who contribute to the GA process as reviewers, nominators, writers, or something else. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per Krimpet. --Kbdank71 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - It sounds like those supporting keeping are advocating a category titled :Wikipedians interested in contributing to Good Articles (or something similar) which I would support keeping. Simply categorizing those who have ever contributed to an article with GA status, however, as this currently does, is not helpful. A rename might not capture everyone in the category, so a deletion with indpendent creation under a better title would be the best solution IMO. VegaDark (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'll weakly support the merge suggestion, though I hesitate, since "interest", unfortunately doesn't necessarily equal "participant in a WikiProject". I'd rather see this deleted, with a note to those who are not yet in the WIkiProject one that they may include themselves. When faced with the possibility of miscategorising Wikipedians, I tend to prefer to err on the side of caution, and not categorise. - jc37 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. + this type of recognition encourages an Ownership of articles attitude, in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• I must respectfully disagree. It doesn't list something like "Good article contributors to ." I doubt anyone who's improved an article to GA status is ignorant of WP:OWN. bibliomaniac15 23:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, oppose merging. I am essentially undecided about this category, but I oppose merging for the reason stated above, in my post dated "21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 (12 days later...) - It looks like this needs to be split up into separate noms (Emacs in particular) in order for consensus to be found. - jc37 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians by text editor

::Category:Wikipedians who use gedit

::Category:Wikipedians who use Vim

::Category:Wikipedians who use Textpad

::Category:Wikipedians who use TextMate

::Category:Wikipedians who use Nano

::Category:Wikipedians who use Kate

::Category:Wikipedians who use jEdit

::Category:Wikipedians who use Emacs

:While each has its own set of "bells and whistles", it shouldn't matter which editor is used, even as External editors. A userpage notice should be enough. - jc37 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as nominator. - jc37 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all - See editor war for some insight on how important people think their editor is. What's the point in deleting them? (As a plan B, I'd vote to delete all but the Emacs option - those other editors are mere toys). --Gronky (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment Wikipedia is not a battleground. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Comment you seem to have missed his point. This has nothing to do with making a battle on Wikipedia, he's just pointing to an article that offers some insight on user preferences. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as per nom. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I must be missing something. What criteria is it being deleted under? (Other than the nom's comment "it shouldn't matter") A quick search of en.wikipedia.org for the string "Wikipedians_who_are" shows that pretty much all such categories of this type are of the "I think it shouldn't matter" variety. --Gronky (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

::*The basic criterion under which user categories are judged is: Does a grouping of users on a certain characteristic facilitate coordination and collaboration amongst users for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*This seems to justify keeping the categories for any editor which has a significant amount of related content in Wikipedia. For Emacs, there are five detailed articles plus about seven medium length articles on derivatives. For vi and vim there's probably similar. So those two should stay. For the other editors, you may be right that facilitating communication between their users cannot lead to any significant contribution to Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

::::*You have a point. However, since Emacs is the only one of these that qualifies, and the text editor category is not particularly relevant to contribution (unlike most of the other software cats), it might be appropriate to move it to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Emacs, a subcategory of :Category:Wikipedians by interest. From what little I know of Emacs (MicroEMACS was installed on my Amiga 4000, but I don't think I ever used it), it's freeware, which means it would fit nicely inside :Category:Wikipedians interested in free software. My point is that we shouldn't have a parent category with only a single child inside, and :Category:Wikipedians by text editor cannot directly contain any users, because of its name. BTW, EMACS has its own article category, :Category:Emacs, with 41(!) articles in the cat; neither vi nor any of the others have an equivalent, which is why Emacs should be treated differently from its peers. Horologium (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::*I wasn't aware of the by-interest categories. Then yes, I agree that the "Wikipedians who use Emacs" category should be renamed to "Wikipedians interested in Emacs". How do we signal this new suggestion to the closing admin? For want of knowing better: HEY CLOSING ADMIN :-)

:::::*(Emacs is indeed free software, but a merge to "interested in free software" would be too broad - free software has 100 million users while emacs probably has less than 100thousand.) --Gronky (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::*The EMACS cat can be moved as a subcat of the free software interest cat, not a straight merge into it. I agree that interest in EMACS and interest in free software are not necessarily the same thing, but it is a subset. Horologium (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see this as anything more than "look at me, I use x". Especially when a reason to keep is "People think their editor is important". Well, of course they do, but that doesn't mean you need a category for it. --Kbdank71 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Although there a number of articles related to some text editors, such as Emacs, the fact of merely using a particular text editor does not imply an interest in or ability to contribute to articles related to that editor. That is, just because someone uses a particular text editor does not automatically mean that they want to write about that editor. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:*I'm in :Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox, but I will probably never edit Firefox. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all This one is actually appropriate to contributing to the encyclopedia. Seeing who uses what in selecting how one wishes to work around here can be a very valuable thing to do. Given the deficiencies of the internal editor, I might well want to ask others about their experiences. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Wikipedians with negative experiences with the internal editor? Sounds awful close to being a "Support/Oppose" category. ("Deficiency" is, of course, subjective to the preferences of the users in question, I would presume.) In addition, the current categories don't specify that this is how the editors edit Wikipedia, merely that they have a preference for using a certain editor over other editors. - jc37 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Another comment that bewilders me. It's pretty obvious that the category is talking about contributing to Wikipedia (just as we assume with the browser categories) -- Ned Scott 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Why? This isn't about what you're contributing, but how. Would you honestly say to someone, "Wow, I sure would like to help you write that article, but you're using Textpad, sorry. I only collaborate with people who use gedit." No, you wouldn't. What people say is ultimately more important than the tool they use to say it. So I ask, how is this information valuable? --Kbdank71 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

::*That.. really doesn't have anything to do with what DGG just said... -- Ned Scott 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*No? DGG said knowing who uses what is valuable. I asked how so. (Yeah, I know, I also said some other stuff. If you wish, ignore that and concentrate on the questions I asked) --Kbdank71 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all per Black Falcon. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• :0,$d. krimpet✽ 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all, same justification as what browsers people use. Sorry if some people don't feel the information is useful, but though people do find it useful, and it doesn't violate anything. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Deletion of the category doesn't remove the "information", useful or otherwise. It can still exist on someone's userpage. This is about the category grouping. - jc37 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

::*So we should manually go out and check every single userpage in order to collect the same information? To claim that it's ok to delete a category, being used as a category, is ok because people can still individually state what they're doing. All that information isolated is pretty much worthless. The value comes when it's collected together, and in a manageable form. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:*There's a difference between claiming that something is useful and being able to explain why or how it is useful. If one cannot do the latter, then there is generally no basis for the former. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Then allow me to explain. Understanding how people work with Wikipedia, what tools they use, is very valuable information. At any given time someone can use these categories to contact users that use these different methods, to gain information that can be shared with others. I'm not sure how many people use these categories, but the number of users alone might be useful information. Not to mention that people often will make some sort of script or plug-in that works with a specific text editor, and would like to find a way to tell others about it (that is, one that is Wikipedia related). These things happen all the time for the browsers categories, and I see no reason to believe they don't have that potential for text editors. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::*I used to be in many "wikipedians who use foo" categories, but it was simply to let people know what I used. I didn't use them to broadcast how I edit related categories (because I didn't) or to show how helpful I would be if contacted (because I wouldn't have been if I had). I figured if someone had a question or wanted to collaborate, they'd get in contact with a wikiproject, or some other gathering place for people who actually wanted to help and had the knowledge to do so. These categories convey neither. Hell, I'm even in :Category:Wikipedia administrators, but only because I am one, not because of my helping nature. If you want admin help, go to the admin noticeboard, not to me. And I will eat my hat if more than 10% of all wikipedians put themselves into a wikipedian category because they want to help. Most of them just got lumped in because they are using a userbox. And I will also guarantee that the vast majority of them wouldn't give a damn (or even notice) if the category that was attached to their userbox was removed from the template. --Kbdank71 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::::*Well, that's you then. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. I'm actually pretty curious what people use when they edit Wikipedia and how their experience is. I find the built-in editor pretty clunky myself. In a way I'm glad these got nominated because I didn't know they existed; now I can investigate this. But of course I hope they don't get deleted, because they certainly are useful. These aren't just more of the "look at me" myspace-type cats. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:10, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• I use UltraEdit to edit articles (by cutting and pasting) all the time because it has fairly powerful search/replace as well as macro capabilities. Although it is not a category under discussion I would get use from knowing who else uses UltraEdit so I could share tips/techniques or ask questions. (as I do for people who use Perl, Excel, etc. Rename them as you like, but keep the categories as they do foster collaboration. Not so much on the articles about the editors, but around the tools and techniques that they can bring to bear on editing articles about completely unrelated things. Unlike what brand of coffee you favour, what editor you use has a direct impact on the likelihood of my deciding to ask you a question about how to accomplish a particular tricky thing. The category is a better way of finding who might be a good person to ask than any other vehicle. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians interested in actors}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is a category for "Wikipedians who favor certain actors and actresses". It is not especially useful as a parent category since there is ample precedent (see here) to delete "Wikipedians who like" categories for individuals, including actors and actresses, for having an overly narrow scope. It is not useful as a regular user category because it is too vague: "certain actors and actresses". In addition, favouring certain actors and actresses is not equivalent to having an encyclopedically-relevant interest in editing articles about them. I'm sure that many people favour George Clooney, Hugh Grant, Scarlett Johansson, and Nicole Kidman, but very few make substantial edit to those articles.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent & nom. Doesn't help collaboration. нмŵוτнτ 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. It sounds like it was created as a parent category, but constant weeding has rendered it obsolete. Horologium (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Interested in" doesn't translate to collaboration or even editing. --Kbdank71 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who like Numberwang}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category cannot facilitate encyclopedic collaboration since it lacks a head article. The category also has an overly narrow scope, since (even if a head article existed) any potential for collaboration would be limited to just one article.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent & nom. Doesn't help collaboration. нмŵוτнτ 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kbdank71 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement}}

:Nominator's rationale: Despite its title, this category is actually populated primarily by transclusions and substitutions of a social-issue identification userbox that does not express an encyclopedically-relevant interest in the subject of the car-free movement. This category was created following the deletion of :Category:Car-free Wikipedians (see discussion), and the same userbox that populated the deleted category now populates this one.

• Delete as nominator, with no prejudice toward proper recreation. Else, remove userbox miscategorisation (here and here) and rename to :Category:Wikipedians interested in the car-free movement (capitalisation). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or decouple from userbox as per nom. I don't own a car (or have a license), but that doesn't mean I am interested in the car-free movement. (I'm not.) Horologium (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

:The following 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 - no consensus to delete. I suggest that there needs to be a broader discussion of the utility of racial self-categorisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:Merge :Category:Wikipedians of Multiracial ancestry to :Category:Multiracial Wikipedians

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant, single-user category with a capitalisation issue ("multiracial" should be lower-case). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Switched to 'delete' as first preference. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as redundant. нмŵוτнτ 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both - As non-specific. Even if we were to entertain the notion that being of more than one "race" might be useful for collaboration, this isn't specific to which races are included. Just looking at Race (classification of human beings), I see:

:*"The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. [http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race] American Association of Physical Anthropologists "Pure races do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past." The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification."

: Sooo, which, what and who? Just too vague to be useful. - jc37 09:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as per nom. While I understand what JC37 is saying, I don't think I can agree with the link, which is part of a larger sociopolitical debate; this category does not, in and of itself, espouse any particular philosophy. Horologium (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• :That's part of the problem. There simply is no specific criteria for inclusion. Is this a category of those whose parents had different skin colours? Those whose parents had distinctive facial features? And further, what about the generally accepted races themselves. Is there any collaborative use for someone who may be of American Indian and and Taiwanese ancestry to be grouped with someone of Western European and Latin American ancestry? This category is just a big melting pot of subjective additives. - jc37 06:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per JC. I'm not seeing how someone of two or more races would be able to collaborate on any article where a person of only one race would not. And it is pretty subjective. How far back can I go to show that I have more than one race in me? And what percentage must each be to be considered multiracial? --Kbdank71 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per jc37. (Both categories are tagged, so there should be no procedural problems with deletion, assuming there is consensus to do so.) In addition to the lack of defined criteria for inclusion, there is also the issue of usefulness. A grouping of multiracial users doesn't facilitate collaboration, and it seems to me that this category is little more than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per above. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. A deletion of the main category is procedurally inappropriate because it hasn't been nominated, and in very poor form given that race is an important issue to some people for self-identification, and telling someone of mixed race that race does not or should not exist is highly and aggressively POV. Wikidemo (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• :This page, just as CFD, is a "Categories for discussion" page. It doesn't matter what the nominator intends. The closure is a result of consensus. And as both have been tagged, there is no reason why the categories can't be merged/deleted/renamed/whatever, depending on what the consensus is determined to be. - jc37 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• :No one's insisting that race does not or should not exist, nor that editors should not express their racial identification. Rather, the argument is that there is no need to maintain a list of multiracial Wikipedians, as such a grouping does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 :Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage to :Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry - jc37 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:Merge :Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese heritage to :Category:Wikipedians of Taiwanese ancestry

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as redundant. нмŵוτнτ 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

----

: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.

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Religious pluralist Wikipedians}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category is much too vague to be able to faciliate encyclopedic collaboration. Religious pluralism can refer to "the worldview that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth", "the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different religions, or denominations within the same religion", and a condition of "religious tolerance". Thus, users in this category can be characterised by possession of a general philosophical belief, support for a general philosophical goal, support for a general philosophical principle or actual state of being, or any combination thereof.

• Delete as nominator and per precedent regarding similarly-vague philosophy categories (see 1, 2, 3). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedians who use Netflix}}

:Nominator's rationale: Grouping users by which video rental service they happen to use does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration.

• Delete as nominator. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It was actually nominated for deletion while I was writing up my nomination to have it deleted. WODUP 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't help collaboration. нмŵוτнτ 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Horologium (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• How is this any different or worse than grouping users by nationality or religion? I'm not trying to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but how is this any less helpful than something like :Category:LGBT Wikipedians, or :Category:Muslim Wikipedians? I think the Keep arguments at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by religion and related could apply here too and am voting Keep. TJ Spyke' 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Does shopping at a particular store give people an above-average ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about that store? ... This category is not comparable to the nationality and religion categories since it has a significantly narrower and more trivial scope. Moreover, a number of the "keep" arguments at the religion discussion revolve around the fact that deletion would be controversial; I doubt that anyone would be as emotional about the deletion of this category. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Merge :Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders - jc37 03:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Merge :Category:Wikipedians who are Distributed Proofreaders to :Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Distributed Proofreaders

:Nominator's rationale: The categories seem to have the same scope. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as redundant. нмŵוτнτ 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as per nom. Horologium (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::Category:Wikipedians who are interested in Ramayana to :Category:Wikipedians interested in Ramayana

:Speedy rename to match the convention of :Category:Wikipedians by interest. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no encyclopedic usefulness. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Moved from the "Speedy nominations" section to encourage discussion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The one user in the category has never even edited Ramayana. I understand that isn't a requirement, but then what's the point of the category? This isn't myspace. --Kbdank71 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The sole user does not seem to have actively edited any article in :Category:Ramayana or :Category:Ramayana epic (soon to be merged) in the past 6 months or so. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians who collect challenge coins}}

Obscure "collect" category, precedent to delete at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who collect Hello Kitties. Only one user despite existing for 15 months. I'm not sure we need any "who collect" categories, but certainly we don't need ones for uncommon things like this, or it would set precedent to keep any other "who collect" category. Additionally, this is only associated with a single article, making a category pointless. VegaDark (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: it is a single-user category (despite the fact that it has existed for 15 months) that has a relatively narrow scope. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kbdank71 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am positive that we have had a discussion about this category in the past, but I cannot find the discussion. I remember it because of a comment I made concerning challenge coins, as I have two of them (I don't collect them, but my last command had two varieties of challenge coins). I believe someone made the suggestion to merge it into coin collecting, which is not the same thing. FWIW, I'm neutral about the category, as many military personnel (especially those in Europe) have some of these coins; they seem to be especially popular with Air Force units. We have a lot of military types here, which might be a pool from which to draw cat members. With only one person in the cat right now, deletion is certainly reasonable, but I'd like to see it deleted without prejudice to recreation if enough users express interest. Horologium (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:*Is this the discussion of which you were thinking? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

::*Yes, I just found it, but you beat me to the punch. Not quite the same thing, but close. Horologium (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus - Confusion over empty or not, and the late additions suggests to me that this should be relisted, starting over. Feel free to do so at editorial discretion. - jc37 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Wikipedian football (soccer) fans}}

:Nominator's rationale: I'm seriously tempted not to state the obvious. Anyway: This category and its subcategories do not serve any encyclopedia-related purpose. User:Dorftrottel 21:39, February 7, 2008

• Delete. No users in it, just a parent category for two more parent categories with no users. What's a user category with no users? A bad joke, any way you look at it. --Kbdank71 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, empty... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment They are quite assuredly not empty. This is an example of a proper use of parent categories. Open up the subcats and you will discover many categories and users. The parent category should not have any users, only child categories. As to the encyclopedic worth of the topic, I will remain steadfastly neutral. Horologium (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Since none of the subcats have been tagged, this discussion can realistically have one of only two outcomes: upmerge or keep, since plain deletion would leave the two subcats uncategorised. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nom comment: I've now tagged :Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) team fans and :Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) league fans. I suggest deleting all of the sparsely populated subcategories (should I tag each of those, too?). Most of those soccer-club-specific subcats have anywhere from 1 to 5 users in them. But even more densely populated categories like :Category:Wikipedian Manchester United F.C. fans or :Category:Wikipedian Liverpool F.C. fans do not serve any collaborative purpose that couldn't be better fulfilled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Participants where people can sign up and indicate the club articles they are interested in. Note: I do not propose merging the fan categories into the wikiproject football participants list! Those users interested in coordinated collaboration regarding specific clubs can sign up at that page at any time. Moreoever, the list could be extended with a league column if that is wished for. User:Dorftrottel 14:19, February 11, 2008

:*Yes, all of the individual subcategories should be tagged if you want the entire category tree to be deleted, else any deletion would be overturned at WP:DRV (you can ask a bot operator to do it since there are so many -- Cydebot and AMbot do a lot of work with CFD). However, in light of the fact that this discussion has been open for four days and there was some initial confusion regarding its scope, it may be easier to wait until it's closed and start a new nomination then. Another option is to expand the nomination's scope, inform the participants, and relist the discussion to today's date... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:**Ok thanks, I'll wait then and eventually open a proper discussion at a later point. User:Dorftrottel 18:14, February 11, 2008

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - jc37 03:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikipedians open to constructive criticism}}

Lots of past precedent to delete categories that should include all Wikipedians by default, which this category does. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as creator. This category has no trout slapping at all in it. You're obviously annoyed at my anti-trout attitude.Wjhonson (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as someone who holds the view that trouts are godless killing machines whose sole purpose is to realise the downfall of humanity through a bloody, yet mildly titillating, cybernetic revolt. ... More seriously, any user who is not open to constructive criticism will within a short period of time: (1) leave the project; (2) be blocked per the WP:NPA policy; or (3) avoid interaction with other users and, therefore, opportunities for collaboration. While I can appreciate the context in which this category was created, I have to wonder: what's next? Category:Wikipedians open to constructive criticism and physical assault with a trout? Category:Wikipedians who are open to constructive criticism and are also occasionally excited at the prospect of being slapped silly with a wet and slightly decomposed fish carcass? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it implies that users who do not include themselves are not open to constructive criticism. Moreover, since we will just assume that everybody is open for constructive criticism, the category includes all users. User:Dorftrottel 21:42, February 7, 2008
• Keep, there is no requirement that all editors be open to constructive criticism. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:*It's essentially impossible to be a non-disruptive member of a collaborative project without a certain degree of openness to constructive criticism... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no usefulness for encyclopedia-building. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm, :Category:Wikipedians not open to constructive criticism. Red link? Yep. Ok, delete this one too. I've said it before, and I stand by it: There is no need to create a category for EVERY SINGLE person, affliction, situation, like, dislike, etc, etc, etc. --Kbdank71 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Black Falcon's alternatives to openness to constructive criticism. WODUP 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a fork of a category which should not exist the community feels is useful. Horologium (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the category does not include all Wikipedians by default, and so the provided rationale for deletion is invalid. Further, I consider it useful in deciding whether or not I would feel comfortable offering someone constructive criticism, and because those who have cited its un-usefulness have not detailed how it is un-useful, I cannot comment on their opinions. --Iamunknown 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

:*While it is (unfortunately) true that this category would not include all Wikipedians by default, the vast majority are or should be -- a collaborative project cannot function if its members are not open to constructive criticism. So, the argument for the "un-usefulness" of the category is that it does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration; if you're seeking something more concrete, then you're essentially asking for proof of nonexistence. Since we should not assume that something is useful until proven otherwise, I think the more feasible approach is to try to show how and whether it is useful. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete - All but one of the users were added to the category by this userbox. (And I'll leave a note on that person's talk page.) So no need to listify as one can do a WHATLINKSHERE on the userbox. (Though obviously anyone who wishes to listify "somewhere" - probably the Wikimania wiki would be best- is welcome to.) - jc37 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{lc|Wikimania 2007 Users}}

Can't see why categorizing this is useful, especially since it has already come and gone. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. VegaDark (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Whatever usefulness this category may or may not have had, it has outlived its purpose. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or listify Want to find someone who went to Wikimania in 07? Well here ya go. Believe it or not, that can be useful information after the event has happened. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Useful for what? Not encyclopedia writing, at any rate. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Listify and delete. A category isn't necessary. --Kbdank71 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, as per Kbdank71. A category is superfluous. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - easier to maintain than a list and serves a purpose finding user who have participated in previous wikimanias to get their input for future events. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

:*A more complete list of attendees exists at http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Attendees. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

::*That's just a list of people who may and may not have been going. A cat here makes the names accessible to en.wiki users who may wish to collaborate a bid locally at first - not everyone is going to go straight to the wikimania wiki at first. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - per Ryan/Ned. Also: Still useful to see at a glance if the user whose page you happen to be looking at attended the event. Not likely that people would look through the list every time they're curious about someone specific. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:02, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Listify on [http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org]. The link provided by Black Falcon is a prevision about who will or won't be there, not an information after it happened. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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